How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Even though Paul commended the Bereans for using sola scriptura, and stated that they were noble for doing so, I can only conclude from your post that must have come to false conclusions, were wrong in their interpretations, and rejected what Paul had to say, because they didn't interpret the Scriptures "your way."
A bit arrogant aren't you?

HP: First, I would hope that God, knowing my heart, would not find me to be arrogant. We shall all give an account one day.

DHK: These NT Christians used the Bible as their sole authority to determine whether or not the message of Paul was true.

HP: The problem is with the wording you use, i.e., “sole authority.” Why would one assume, as you at least appear to be doing, that such a search of Scripture would of necessity exclude the use of other God-given tools such as first truths of reason, matters of fact, or truths of immutable justice?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrusitL: I wonder when the intuitive understanding that HP has and the scriptures that DHK relies on will bring them to the understanding that they are not "being kindly affectioned one to another in brotherly love".

HP: Help us out. What can each of us do to act in a loving manner as would be becoming of Christian brotherly love from your perspective?

 

[trustitl]

HP: Help us out. What can each of us do to act in a loving manner as would be becoming of Christian brotherly love from your perspective?

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this is a sincere request.

My answer will be a good example of where Sola Scriptura from your perspective is not sufficient. I would try a chapter and verse approach with DHK since he is a Sola Scriptura guy, but I will go with something intangible with you: I do not sense the spirit of your dialogue to be proper. You can do with that what you wish, but I think you both are frequently guilty of exhibiting an attitude of contention and strife.

You two kind of remind me of a couple of my daughters who seem to enjoy the strife between them. I think you both need to examine yourselves to see if you are functioning as a part of the body of Christ. I am wearing out on this BB thing since it seems that there is little edification going on among the users. Life offers enough troubles on its own, we don't need to voluntarily add to it.

Just in case DHK reads in: :wavey:
Galatians 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this is a sincere request.

My answer will be a good example of where Sola Scriptura from your perspective is not sufficient. I would try a chapter and verse approach with DHK since he is a Sola Scriptura guy, but I will go with something intangible with you: I do not sense the spirit of your dialogue to be proper. You can do with that what you wish, but I think you both are frequently guilty of exhibiting an attitude of contention and strife.

HP: It was a sincere request. My sincere desire is for Christ to be seen in every aspect of my life. I also have a heart for the truth and believe we need to provoke one another, but that always must be done in a spirit of Christian love.

I will accept your assessment and grant to myself a week or so without posting on the list and seek the Lord to help me improve where others might see me failing. I sincerely appreciate your openness. You have had much to offer the list. Thank you.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Its something I've believed in for the past 13 years.

But Im at a point now where Im revisiting everything that I believe, and I just dont see how its possible, especially considering that for the first few hundred years, the bible wasnt all put together.

They didnt have all the "scriptura" to be "sola" about.

And it seems to me to be obvious that "sola scriptura" is problematic. How many protestant denominations do we have now? All claiming Sola Scriptura with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Either the Holy Spirit is confusing us, or maybe we are wrong about Sola Scriptura.

There is no way I am reading all 63 replies. lol But Emily, I had a question for you. Why are you revisiting everything you believe? What prompted this questioning? I am not saying its bad, but I am curious what provoked this?

Also, by you saying that you have believed Sola Scriptura to be true for the last 13 years, does this mean you have been a Christian now for 13 years? I would also be curious as to your personal testimony of coming to faith in Christ if you don't mind sharing.

Thanks. :jesus:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It does seem to me as though it was the Catholics/orthodox folks who God trusted to pen our New Testaments.

I am not looking at becoming Catholic, btw...

But it seems to me that nobody REALLY believes in sola scriptura.. really.. I mean, a lot of my first ideas about how to interpret the bible came from a charismatic church and the Pastors opinions and interpretations. When scripture stopped making sense there, my husband and I hopped over to the Baptist church, but yet again, I am running into scriptures that do not make any sense at all whatsoever.. Peter's keys, binding and loosing, This IS my body, being a few. It seems like a more ancient, traditional christianity has better answers for those things.. THere being no universal church being another huge one for me. When I read the bible, its so clear to me, but Im told by baptists that that "is not what scripture means". ugh.. so frustrating.

And I have yet to read the church fathers for myself, but I am going to. I keep hearing that the ancient church looks much more Catholic, that they really did believe in Eucharist, and that infants were baptized as the norm.

Again, keep in mind, I have made absolutely no decisions, but Im looking at this very seriously. I want to know the truth.

And no, I dont think that the bible is inadequate AT ALL. I think we are the inadequate ones, BUT, if there is a church that has it right, then I want in. Its so confusing and divided.

Do we have a free will or not? (scripture seems to say yes and no)
Are baptism and the Lords supper sacramental? Baptists say no.
-I believe that scripture says YES resoundingly, even though I attend a baptist church. when I read the scriptures involving both of these things, I do not come to the conclusion by scripture alone, that these things are just acts of obedience.

There is so much that divides us. How do we KNOW that we are the right ones?

I guess thats all Im asking.

Because I tell you what, I dont know that Im right. I know nothing.

Emily, did anyone respond to this?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Reformed Baptist,

"Emily, did anyone respond to this?"

I know that I did. See post 39, on page 4, of this thread.


:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

HP: The problem is with the wording you use, i.e., “sole authority.” Why would one assume, as you at least appear to be doing, that such a search of Scripture would of necessity exclude the use of other God-given tools such as first truths of reason, matters of fact, or truths of immutable justice?

1. Because I believe the principle of sola scriptura.
2. Because I believe what the Bible says.
3. Because the Bible says that they searched the Scriptures.
4. Because the Bible does not say that they used any other methods but the Scriptures. I go by what the Bible says. It is not philosophy. It is simple Bible hermeneutics, the very first principle of which is to take literally what the Bible says.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[bound]

Bad mistake. When looking for the truth, go to its very source: "the way, the truth, the life," is Jesus Himself, who is revealed to us in the Scriptures. What do the ECF reveal to us:
Origen is often referred to as the "Father of Arianism." He was a heretic. His heresies are well known, so well known that even the RCC declared him a heretic.
Ireaneus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80, and had some other very eccentric ideas.
The idea of purgatory surfaced with the ECF.
Tertullian believed in infant baptism during the first part of his life. In the latter part of his life he got converted, was baptized as an adult by immersion, and then joined the Montanists. Which part of Tertullian's life are you going to believe?

Grace and Peace DHK,

What I find confusing is that you point out individuals who although are historical personages, are not historically considered Saints of the Early Church so how can you suggest that these are examples of Early Church Fathers?

 

[DHK]

Grace and Peace DHK,

What I find confusing is that you point out individuals who although are historical personages, are not historically considered Saints of the Early Church so how can you suggest that these are examples of Early Church Fathers?

Hello Bound,
The ones I mentioned are generally grouped into the category known as the "Early Church Fathers." I realize that they are more accurately delineated nicene, anti-nicene, and so on. I haven't bothered to find out exactly what period of time each one lived. I am not quite sure what you are asking, though.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Bound,

"What I find confusing is that you point out individuals who although are historical personages, are not historically considered Saints of the Early Church so how can you suggest that these are examples of Early Church Fathers?"

The word "saint" is a synonym for "christian". Nothing more. It has nothing to do with behavior or humility or what century they lived in whatsoever. The most sinfull (while on earth) christian in heaven is 100% as much a "saint" as the "holiest" man or woman who has ever lived.

This buisiness of taking human beings and placing them "High and Lifted Up" serves no good purpose but to perpetuate the Church of Rome and the Orthodox groups strange practice of worshipping, and venerating, mere humans at the expense of Almighty God...who deserves 100% percent of our worship and veneration.


:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

Bound,



The word "saint" is a synonym for "christian". Nothing more. It has nothing to do with behavior or humility or what century they lived in whatsoever. The most sinfull (while on earth) christian in heaven is 100% as much a "saint" as the "holiest" man or woman who has ever lived.

This buisiness of taking human beings and placing them "High and Lifted Up" serves no good purpose but to perpetuate the Church of Rome and the Orthodox groups strange practice of worshipping, and venerating, mere humans at the expense of Almighty God...who deserves 100% percent of our worship and veneration.

I am not the one that makes that distinction.
The reason that I don't read the "Early Church Fathers" is precisely because I don't believe that they are saved, or at least a good many of them. The RCC relies upon them. Some of them be "saints" in Christ, some of them not.

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK,

"I am not the one that makes that distinction."

I know. I was adressing my post to "Bound".

"The reason that I don't read the "Early Church Fathers" is precisely because I don't believe that they are saved, or at least a good many of them."

I agree completly with that. Many of these so called "Saints" that the Orthodox and Catholics worship never were born again people, imo.

"The RCC relies upon them."

Of course they do. As the Orthodox do. They have to find their justification for their idolatry somewhere...since they cant find it in the scriptures.

"Some of them be "saints" in Christ, some of them not."

Thats true.


:godisgood:

 

[Matt Black]

Emily, your journey sounds very similar to mine, at least in recent years. I too came to a realisation that SS was theologically bankrupt and was a guaranteed recipe for epitemological chaos and doctrinal relativism. Where I'm at at the moment is that I rely on Scripture + the Tradition of the Undivided Church (up to 1054); whilst that doesn't answer each and every question definitively, it provided a sufficient corpus of agreed doctrine to go on.

[ETA - you may wish to check out this archived thread which to an extent demonstrates where I've come from]

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I don't think from the OO perspective it was a "small schism" and the break still exists today, 1500 years later. The ones I converse with often resent EO efforts to minimize the differences and portray one Orthodox world in communion with the EO. And I believe there are indeed several members of the Eastern Catholic churches which did come from the Oriental Orthodox to seek communion with Rome.

Actually, the restoration of full communion is already in the process. The Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria have already both accepted the outcome of the official dialog on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Pastoral_Agreement_between_the_Coptic_Orthodox_and_Greek_Orthodox_Patriarchates_of_Alexandria_(2001)

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

HP: Of a truth many Scriptures were written subsequent to the Church age, yet was it the Church or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that produced the Scriptures? Even if ‘in a sense’ one would believe the Church produced the NT Scriptures, can it rightfully be said that the Church produced the OT?

In reference to my tag line, when I say “Bible”, I’m speaking of the Bible we know it today. When I speak of Church, it’s the Church founded at Pentecost.

Holy Scripture was written by the prophets and apostles in human language, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and collected, and canonized by the Church.

Is not it an over-stepping of the bounds of reason to say that Christ did not leave a written book to guide His Church? What else do we have to judge the legion of conflicting statements made by men and women within the church?

We have the deposit of faith given by Christ to the Apostles and passed on to the Church from one generation to another, without addition, alteration or subtraction. As Vladimir Lossky describes it, the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.

This is our measuring stick to judge any conflicting statements made within the Church. This is Protestantism down fall, Protestantism is ever changing and dogmas develop and are changed to suit agendas based on a faulty interpretation of Holy Scripture.

In XC
-

 

[Pastor Larry]

I too came to a realisation that SS was theologically bankrupt and was a guaranteed recipe for epitemological chaos and doctrinal relativism.

It is the abandonment of sola scriptura that has caused the chaos and doctrinal relativism. When people assume there are multiple places of authority, each man becomes his own pope. That is what has happened in, for instance, the RCC. Since there are multiple authorities (according to them), there is no guidance as to what is actually true.

When the Bible alone is recognized as the source of authority (which is what God designed), there might be confusion about what it says, but there is no confusion about what is right and where the authority is.

What is "theologically bankrupt" is denying what the Scriptures themselves say about themselves. And that is what you have done.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We are going to take one thing at a time.
A couple of facts. The earliest copies of the LXX have different books.
The LXX at the time of Christ and which books were in it are not known with any degree of certainity. It is a very common Catholic/Orthodox apologetic claim but its not true. We do not know what exactly was in the LXX when.
What we do know is that the earliest copies have different books. So I reject one of your basic presuppositions.
It was in "flux".
Now I would like to address another specific point. You say the Jews wanted to limit messianic prophecy. Where did that specifically occur and how do you know?
Thank you. I have not had discussions with you but I believe we must historically verify all of our claims prior to determining interpretation of the data we agree on.

Ok I'll take your last statement first.

2.2 The Council of Jamnia
The next major piece of evidence to be noted is the Council of Jamnia, which seems to have taken place around 90 AD. This council established and closed the canon authoritatively for nearly all Jews. It has been their canon ever since. Yet it should be noted that the council did not speak for all Jews, there were Jews living in Ethiopia who either did not hear of it or did not accept the decision of Jamnia. To this day they use a different canon than their Palestinian brethren [Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol 6, p 1147].

As far as the LXX lets say I agree with you. Though there is dispute about this and for the sake of this argument I will agree with you. (Though unlike you I believe that all of the books in the version we know as the LXX were available to the early christians) That does not deminish the fact that the earliest christian writers referred to certain text in the LXX not in the Hebrew bible as authoritative. Look at Clements letter to the Corinthians in AD 90. He refers to Judith. As early as AD 90. Paul when we quotes from OT text is using LXX language and phrases. This would indicate that he was using the greek text and consider that with referrences in early christian writings to books not in the Hebrew bible that christians looked at the LXX as authoritative. So if not all books in the LXX we know as apocryphal at least some of them were considered authoritative.

 

[Matt Black]

It is the abandonment of sola scriptura that has caused the chaos and doctrinal relativism. When people assume there are multiple places of authority, each man becomes his own pope. That is what has happened in, for instance, the RCC. Since there are multiple authorities (according to them), there is no guidance as to what is actually true.

What a lot of contradictions here! Firstly, it is SS which produces "each man becoming his own pope" - and we see the pernicious effects of this all around, particularly on these boards

When the Bible alone is recognized as the source of authority (which is what God designed),

Show me where the Bible claims that

there might be confusion about what it says, but there is no confusion about what is right and where the authority is.

But what's the point if there is still chaos about what is right? This is not the way Christ designed it,surely?!

What is "theologically bankrupt" is denying what the Scriptures themselves say about themselves. And that is what you have done.

Fine, if the Scriptures claim that. Which they don't. Anywhere.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It is the abandonment of sola scriptura that has caused the chaos and doctrinal relativism. When people assume there are multiple places of authority, each man becomes his own pope. That is what has happened in, for instance, the RCC. Since there are multiple authorities (according to them), there is no guidance as to what is actually true.

When the Bible alone is recognized as the source of authority (which is what God designed), there might be confusion about what it says, but there is no confusion about what is right and where the authority is.

What is "theologically bankrupt" is denying what the Scriptures themselves say about themselves. And that is what you have done.

I agree 100% brother. The abandonment of Sola Scriptura for a pretended Sola Ecclessia has led to the worst heresy, vice, darkness, and depravity seen. No church by their deeds are more reprehensible than Antichrist has perpetuated on the world, plunging it into deep darkness, which by the grace of God the Reformation, being a heaven-sent revival, God was pleased to use to restore the Gospel and the Word of God to itself rightful place--albeit not without much bloodshed perpetrated against them.