If I abandon Sola Scriptura...

[BRIANH]

The Catholic Church claims to be the true church. Maybe their version of tradition and scripture is correct.

The Orthodox Church claims to be the original church. Maybe their version of tradition and scripture is correct.

The Oriental Orthodox claim to be the original church. Maybe their version of tradition and scripture is correct. They do have legitimate Apostolic Succession according to the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church.

The Assyrian Church of the East claims to be the original church. But they are Nestorian. But now the Catholic Church has worked at their differences and it may have been a big understanding. Maybe their version of tradition and scripture is correct.

The Anglican church has Apostolic Succession (well the Roman Catholics say they don't but they say they do) and believe they follow traditions that are not as corrupted..they don't have indulgences for example. Except they ordain homosexuals and women to bishops. So maybe the break off or continuing Anglicans might have the correct version of tradition and scripture. Except there are like a hundred of those. Maybe one of their views of tradition and scripture is correct.

The Old Catholic Church used to be Roman Catholics but they broke off because of the Papal Infallibility. Maybe their version of scripture and tradition is correct.

The Sedevacantism movement claims they are the true church not corrupted by Vatican II. Maybe their version of scripture and tradition is correct.

The Polish National Catholic Church also has Apostolic Succession. They separated from the Roman Catholic Church about a hundred years ago over infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Maybe their version of scripture and tradition is correct.

The Porvoo communion of Lutheran churches is a group of six major groups in Northern Europe. They maintained Apostolic Succession. Maybe their version of scripture and tradition is correct.

Then there are the hundreds of other smaller groups which also claim Apostolic Succession and use tradition and scripture. They are small sure, but after all narrow is the road...maybe any of their views are actually the real one....
http://www.ind-movement.org/links_denominations.html

I am in a real quandry because everyone knows that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine because all of these people claim to follow it and none of them agree on everything.
So I am going to follow scripture and tradition but they also disagree....

 

[Thinkingstuff]

MY point with Sola Scriptura is that no one really is. DHK made a point in one of his post that his understanding of Sola Scriptura was that Scriptures were primary. If you look at the early Church Fathers they disagree a lot as well. Christianity from it inseption has disagreed with just about everything which makes me wonder at how effective Jesus prayer that we all be one was.

Canon means rule (like ruler). Scriptures are just that a rule to guide us in our relationship with God. The churches that claim to have the "deposit of Faith" and those that are "sola scriptura" both claim that this is so. Note that both groups also state that the NT was born out of oral tradition passed down. So it is safe to assume that "the tradition of the church" and the "oral tradition" of the church are and is expressed in the NT. So if I were being economical about it I would feel safe with following the scriptures. Though I may disagree with DHK and others about certain issues. This is what I call the least common denominator. I would not leave the scriptures to follow a "tradition" that was contrary to it because even the Orthodox christians state that scriptures and tradition cannot contradict one another. It is their view that one enhances the other but if you were a minamalist then you would decide: I can't go wrong with scripture. So as a believer trust in the scriptures. I do. Am I sola scriptura. Well, actually like I said no one trully is. I believe in Jesus being of the same essense as the Father and the Spirit. I beleive Jesus was fully God and Man at the same time not two people or presentation of just one. These things are flushed out by councils but are alluded to in scripture. I use my own experiences to help me understand scripture as well. Am I saved? Yes by all means. Was it through the preaching of the gospel. Yes! Scriptures lead me to salvation as well as the Holy Spirit.

 

[billwald]

This problem arises because Christians read the Bible backwards. When the bible is read front to back one comes across Deut before one gets to the NT. In Deut one will read that Moses specified the canon 2000 years before the Incarnation. In other words, any writing that follows Deut must be compared with the Deut canon. Any text or theory that contradicts Deut is suspect.

 

[Matt Black]

Brian, you already know my answer - it was given on the other SS thread

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This problem arises because Christians read the Bible backwards. When the bible is read front to back one comes across Deut before one gets to the NT. In Deut one will read that Moses specified the canon 2000 years before the Incarnation. In other words, any writing that follows Deut must be compared with the Deut canon. Any text or theory that contradicts Deut is suspect.

A curious way of phrasing things, but I think I get your meaning. And I disagree with it. It has been said by someone, "The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed." I agree with this. It is not the Old that interprets the New, but the New that interprets the Old.

 

[Matt Black]

Agreed at least on that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A curious way of phrasing things, but I think I get your meaning. And I disagree with it. It has been said by someone, "The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed." I agree with this. It is not the Old that interprets the New, but the New that interprets the Old.

wasnt that Augustine or was it Jerome?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

wasnt that Augustine or was it Jerome?

Can't remember, but it sounds cool.

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic church is "schism master" giving birth to schism after schism with each new error in doctrine that it swallows and then some of it's members just can't blindly go "that far".

The bible model of sola scriptura is SEEN in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures DAILY TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" -

How sad that so many Christians today are bailing out on that time after time.

In Mark 7 Christ says "IN VAIN do they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"

Bob

 

[billwald]

>The bible model of sola scriptura is SEEN in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures DAILY TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" -

Right. And the "Scriptures" were the Tanakh. They could not have been anything written by Paul. It was Paul who was being critiqued.

 

[Alive in Christ]

"If I abandon Sola Scriptura..."

You enter into the world of dead liturgy, heresy, paganism, idolatry and goddess worship.



:godisgood:

 

[Bro. James]

If I abandon...I probably never believed it from the start. This is kind of like being set free from the law of sin and death and then going back to wallowing in it some more. The born again spirit does not sin--the flesh sins daily. All of our righteousness is as filthy rags. The Word of God is like a two-edged sword--it shows us what we really are: depraved, through and through. Our carnal nature does not like that--we seek the opinions of men to help water down and pollute The Word, and tickle our ears. Truth is Truth, whether we believe or not. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

There is only one final authority on things of spirit.

If one can knock out sola scriptura, all the other solas become irrelevant. We wind up teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Satan is alive and well on planet earth.

Selah,

Bro. James