Sola Scriptura

[mojoala]

Not until 8 months ago did I ever hear of this phrase. SOLA SCRIPTURA. I was never a Bible Reader until I turned 40 three years ago. I only listened to the Pastor teach every Sunday morning, night and Wednesday night.

Then one day a fellow co-worker were talking about his Catholic Eucharist and he read some scripture to me. Since I started paying attention to what the Pastor said when I was 13, I have never had a Pastor read these verses that this Catholic was presenting to me. I told him about never heard these being read by a Pastor in 27 years of listening. He responded:

"I am not surprised, there are a lot of things things Protestant Pastors don't want you to know. They only read those parts of the bible that they want you to know, but they tell you to read the Bible yourself hoping you will not discover what is written in it's pages hoping you will skim over these passages that he never covers. And if your Pastor is trained in a school of Theology or Seminary, he has some knowledge of the Early Church Fathers which he keeps secret as well."

At this point I interrupted him, and asked him who these Early Church Fathers were. And proceeded to explain. He told me there are a lot of resources on the Internet. He said do a search on Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura. I told him I had heard the Pastor in brief mention Bible Alone. He also told me to sit down on Saturday and read the New Testament from beginning to end and see if I could discover where the Bible says it is the Sole Source of Authority, etc, etc, etc.

I had heard the Pastor in brief mention Bible Alone. So I sat down to read the New Testament in order to see what other things I was not being taught and whether this Bible Alone was actually biblical. I could not find any explicit verse that stated that the Bible itself is the Final Authority. Then I read online all the arguments for and against. The against is more plausible and more logical.

One passage that is never cited as a proof text for​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT]is [FONT=Arial,Arial]2 Peter 1:20-2:1[/FONT]. That's hardly surprising. In this passage Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: "[FONT=Arial,Arial]No prophecy [/FONT]of scripture is a matter of [FONT=Arial,Arial]one's own interpretation[/FONT]." Then Peter warns: "But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there [FONT=Arial,Arial]will be [/FONT]false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in [FONT=Arial,Arial]destructive heresies[/FONT], even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet 2:1). Note that under divine inspiration Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies! ​

The Greek word that is translated as "heresies" comes from the verb

[FONT=Arial,Arial]haireomai[/FONT], which means " to take or to choose for oneself." In the first century it had the negative meaning of going off on one's own in rebellion to the established teaching. Thus, in Acts 24:14 some translations render it as "sect". ​

This message by Paul would manifest itself with Martin Luther:​

[FONT=Arial,Italic]

Sola scriptura ​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]


[/FONT]

is clearly unworkable. Individual interpretation of the Bible has lead to the uncontrollable fragmentation within Protestantism. The total number of Protestant denominations is rapidly approaching 30,000. This scandalous disunity embraces both doctrinal and moral issues. Nor is there any possibility within the framework of [FONT=Arial,Italic]sola scriptura [/FONT]to mend this fracturing. Even Luther, who introduced this virus of chaos into Christianity, came to see the excesses to which it was headed.​

After he broke from Rome Luther wrote that the Bible could be interpreted by anyone "even the humble miller's maid, nay, a child of nine."

However, later in his career he called the Bible the "heresy book." In 1525 he wrote: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet." ​

The vital issue with [FONT=Arial,Italic]sola scriptura [/FONT]is, of course, interpretation. [FONT=Arial,Italic]Sola scriptura [/FONT]asserts that the Holy Spirit guides the Bible believing Christian in correctly interpreting the word of God in matters essential to the faith. Since Protestants reject the reality of an infallible interpretative authority within the Church, how does one reconcile differences? ​

Forget for a moment ignore the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants. For illustration purposes let's consider an issue debated within Protestant groups - baptismal regeneration. One group teaches that baptism is essential. A second group teaches that baptism is desirable, but not essential. A third group rejects baptism altogether. Each group cites the Bible as its source. Which is the correct interpretation? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit is responsible for this confusion? Did God give his people an infallible book without giving his children any way of correctly interpreting it?​

The statement in 2 Peter 1:20 is so strong in its opposition to idea of [FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT]that one Protestant translation attempts to subvert its meaning by inserting words that are not in the original. Thus the NIV intentionally mistranslates "one's own interpretation" with "by the prophet's own interpretation." However, [FONT=Arial,Arial]tou prophetou [/FONT]is not found in the Greek text. ​

This highlights another problem with​

​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura[/FONT]. Not only does it impose ones individual interpretations on the text of the Bible, but individual interpretation becomes the basis of replacing the inspired text!











​

 

[mojoala]

Sole Scriptura [FONT=Arial,Arial]is Not Biblical [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]



[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]

The most damaging criticism of​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]is the reality that the Bible does not teach it.3 This leads to an absurdity. The adherents of [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]claim that every thing that is essential for a Christian to know is clearly taught in the Bible, and only in the Bible. However, the Bible does not teach that every thing that is essential for a Christian to know is clearly taught in the Bible, and only in the Bible. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]

The passage that is most often cited as a proof text by those who support​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]is [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]2 Timothy 3:15-17. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]Let's examine that passage beginning with its immediate context. Paul is clearly instructing Timothy and the church in Ephesus to be a faithful witness during difficult times. There is no indication anywhere in this Epistle that he is contrasting Sacred Scripture with other sources of revelation, or even discussing the subject. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]

In addition, the "sacred writings" with which Timothy has been acquainted "from childhood" (verse 15) refers to the Old Testament. Are we to believe that St. Paul is teaching that the Old Testament constitutes the only source needed to know what Jesus taught?​

Lastly, Paul has many important things to say about the scriptures. They "are able to instruct you for salvation in Christ Jesus" (v. 15). However, he doesn't claim that
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]only [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]the scriptures can instruct one for salvation in Christ Jesus. "All scripture is inspired by God" (v. 16), but Paul does not claim that [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]only [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]scripture is inspired by God. Paul also affirms that scripture is "profitable for teaching for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (v. 17), but he never asserts that [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]only [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]scripture is so useful. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]

Some Protestant apologists cite​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]John 20:31 [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]to buttress [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]. This passage informs us that John's Gospel, and by inference the other books of the Bible, were written that we "may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and …have life in his name." However, one finds no affirmation in this passage that [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]only [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]scripture serves this purpose. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]



[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]

John 5:39​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]is also used in the vain attempt to support [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]. This interpretation distorts the entire meaning of the passage. In the first place the "scriptures" Jesus refers to is the Old Testament. Secondly, Jesus is rebuking the disbelieving Jews who refused to see in him the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. Why? They rejected Jesus because they relied on their interpretation of the scriptures. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]

Several Protestant apologists have argued that in​

[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]Acts 17:11 [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]one finds clear support that the Bible is the sole and final authority. This is ironic, because the passage in question proves exactly the opposite. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]

In Acts 17:2 we learn that in Thessalonica Paul not only read from scripture, but he also "reasoned", that is, debated with the Jews from the scriptures. He attempted to convince them that the Christ had to suffer. In other words Paul was interpreting the Old Testament in an effort to show that the messiah of their scriptures is Jesus of the New Covenant (Acts 17:5-9). Regrettably, only "some" were persuaded by Paul's explanation.​

[/FONT]

What did the Jews in Thessalonica reject? They did not reject the veracity or usefulness of scripture. Nor did they reject messianic prophecies. They rejected Paul's interpretation of scripture, which supported his claim that Jesus was the messiah. In short, like the Jews Jesus admonished in Jn 5:39, they were sola scriptura men, who rejected the Word who is God based on their individual interpretation of the word of God!​

The Jews of Berea, on the other hand, "received the message [Paul's preaching] with great eagerness" (Acts 17:11). They "examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11) with an openness to accept a new revelation. That new revelation was not the Bible, but Paul's oral teaching for his preaching was "the word of God" (Acts 17:13). The faith of the "many" (Acts 17:12) who accepted Christ in Berea wasn't based on sola scriptura, but on their acceptance of Paul's interpretation of the Old Testament in light of the fullness of God's revelation, Jesus Christ.​

I am 43 years of age. I grew up Baptist, Pentecostal, Congregational Holiness(holy rollers). ​

I never was a bible reader until about 3 years ago. I took an extreme interest in Bible Study after a catholic-co-worker pointed out some scripture I have never heard during my 43 years from any pastor at any time. ​

This led me on a search for "WHAT ELSE IS IN THE BIBLE THAT I AM NOT BEING TAUGHT".​

To say the least, I found things that were disturbing. My interpretation fits more in line with the RCC and that was terrifying. Last year I took in a foreign exchange student from Russia. ​

This boy had never stepped inside of a church and never seen a bible. I took this boy as a god-send for my prayers. I did not want to believe that the RCC might be right, so I conducted an experiment with the boy. ​

I stopped attending church on Sunday. I did not want this boy to have any preprogramming done to him by the church I was attending.
So we sat down each night and covered 2 chapters each night starting with the New Testament. We went from beginning to the end. He would read a chapter and I would ask him what that chapter meant to him. I recorded his thoughts. I did not give him my thoughts on the Chapter. ​

His thoughts on the New Testament was very RCC and not very Baptist at all.​

Then I started doing historical studies and research. The results of the last year of doing this drawing me away from the Baptist and closer to the RCC or at least toward the Anglicans. ​

I have been here providing the Catholic argument to scripture and belief. This answers I am getting are not convincing enough to keep me Baptist especially when the Comments come back eventually with anger and hatred. The average Baptist has no idea that these debate are a raging war on the internet. Most just go to church when told and told what to read and believe. Most don't have any awareness of History of Christianity. Most don't have any knowledge of the Culture that existed when the books of the New Testament were being written. Most only know what they have been told. And what has been told has a high probablility of being distorted and twisted or at the least significants parts omitted. ​

​

 

[mojoala]

Currently I am doing another experiment with an exchange student whom has had no exposure to christianity. This student is from Africa. His commentaries are very enlightening. We have covered the Gospels, his interpreation is basically non-protestant. He is having a hard time with the Epistles of Paul because THEY ARE VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND. I can't wait for him to reach Peter's Epistles, especially the one that says that Pauls stuff is hard to understand. ​

So that is part of my story.​

 

[JamieinNH]

mojoala,

I am not going to give you a response to your Sola Scriptura remarks, as you have made your mind up, and you're only TROLLING for and argument.

However...

You never answerd my question over that another thread you started. Can you answer this?

Your Thread - My Question


Thanks,

Jamie

 

[Martin]

"I am not surprised, there are a lot of things things Protestant Pastors don't want you to know. They only read those parts of the bible that they want you to know,"

1. It was the Roman Catholic Church that tried to keep the Scriptures out of the hands of lay people. It was protestants who worked to get the Scriptures translated into the language of the average person.

2. Just because your pastor does not preach on whatever texts this Catholic is talking about does not mean that all, or even most, protestant pastors don't. You, and your Catholic friend, are assuming alot.

He also told me to sit down on Saturday and read the New Testament from beginning to end and see if I could discover where the Bible says it is the Sole Source of Authority, etc, etc, etc.

The Bible says nothing about the Trinity either. Now being a Catholic I am sure your friend believes in the Trinity, right?

Does the Bible claim to be the sole authority? The Bible does say that all Scripture is inspired by God and is able to make the believer "adequate, equipped for every good work" (2Tim 3:16-17). Since Scripture is the Word of the Lord and since it is capable of producing the results of salvation and of those spoken of in 2Tim 3:16-17, I don't see why extra revelation is needed. Any modern writings, or writings of the church fathers, must be judged by the Word of the God.

I could not find any explicit verse that stated that the Bible itself is the Final Authority.

You will also find no "explicit verse" teaching purgatory, the Pope, the Trinity, or most any other teaching (be it true or false).

2 Peter 1:20-2:1. That's hardly surprising. In this passage Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: "No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." Then Peter warns: "But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet 2:1). Note that under divine inspiration Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies!

What does "individual interpretation" have to do with sola Scriptura?

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" -2Pet 1:20-21

First the passage is speaking of prophecy (vs19).

Second the point is that the sure word of prophecy, from the Holy Spirit, is not up for individual interpretation. It says what it means and people are not to invent meanings for it.

Thirdly your above false accusation of protestant preachers is proven wrong here. I have heard many sermons, by many different preachers, on this text. So you are wrong to say that protestant preachers avoid it. It is also examined in every commentary, I have read by a protestant scholar, on 2Peter or the New Testament.

is clearly unworkable. Individual interpretation of the Bible has lead to the uncontrollable fragmentation within Protestantism.

Are you not aware of the fact that there are different views within the Catholic Church as well? Are you also not aware of the fact that most protestant denominations don't disagree on major issues but rather on minor issues? ​

However, later in his career he called the Bible the "heresy book." In 1525 he wrote: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet."

​

Since I have many of the writings of Luther in my library do you care to give me the source for the above quote so I can check it out? If you fail to do so I will assume you can't and have misquoted Martin Luther.​

Btw people, Catholics or protestants, come to false beliefs because they do not use the grammatical/historical/cultural interpretation of Scripture (ie..it says what it means). For example if Catholics practiced that they would not bow to the pope.​

The vital issue with sola scriptura is, of course, interpretation. Sola scriptura asserts that the Holy Spirit guides the Bible believing Christian in correctly interpreting the word of God in matters essential to the faith. Since Protestants reject the reality of an infallible interpretative authority within the Church, how does one reconcile differences?

So how do you, a Catholic apologist, reconcile the contradictory rulings of various popes and councils in the Roman Church? Do you ignore them? Answer me, please.​

What you leave out is that sola scriptura also asserts that people have to use proper Bible study methods. Sloppy study habits leads to sloppy results. Your confession that you only heard about sola scriptura 8 months ago, yet now you seem to think you are scholar on the matter, comes to my mind.​

For illustration purposes let's consider an issue debated within Protestant groups - baptismal regeneration...Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit is responsible for this confusion? Did God give his people an infallible book without giving his children any way of correctly interpreting it?

​

Don't forget, protestant or not, it has a view and it is therefore in the debate. I can turn your whole argument around and use it AGAINST YOU ! That should be a sign that your argument is weak.​

Now baptismal regeneration must be judged true or false by a proper study of Scripture. No pope or council can give a ruling and force that ruling to be correct if it is not based on the Word of God.​

Thus the NIV intentionally mistranslates "one's own interpretation" with "by the prophet's own interpretation."

​

The NIV uses dynamic equivalence which attempts to make the text more "readable" in the modern tongue. While all translations use dynamic equivalence at points the NIV uses it rather heavily. The translators "aimed for accuracy, coupled with a willingness to abandon word-for-word translation..". You should be aware that most protestant scholars do not use the NIV.​

sola scriptura. Not only does it impose ones individual interpretations on the text of the Bible, but individual interpretation becomes the basis of replacing the inspired text!

The Catholic Church, btw, imposes the interpretation of the Church on the text. This interpretation can be wrong and therefore all Christians are strongly advised to study Scripture and see if any interpretation is correct.​

Scriptural ignorance among Catholics is dangerously high. This is why it is mostly Catholics who come running every time someone thinks they see Jesus or Mary on their toast or on a tree in their backyard. Anyone who has a solid Biblical foundation in their life would not fall for such trickery (which must avoid the FACT that we don't know what Jesus or Mary looked like).​

In my view you need to do much more study on this issue. First you need to do a detailed study of Scripture. That will take more than 8 months or one quick read through on a Saturday. There are issues I have studied for years and I am still learning. You also need to study writings by people who are scholars, on both sides, instead of listening to some guy at work and surfing the internet.

 

[Martin]

Currently I am doing another experiment with an exchange student whom has had no exposure to christianity. This student is from Africa. His commentaries are very enlightening. We have covered the Gospels, his interpreation is basically non-protestant. He is having a hard time with the Epistles of Paul because THEY ARE VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND. I can't wait for him to reach Peter's Epistles, especially the one that says that Pauls stuff is hard to understand. ​

==That is also meaningless. No serious student of Scripture, or any other discipline, would take that kind of "experiment" seriously. In fact you would probably be kicked out of graduate school for submitting an experiment with such sloppy controls. You need to seek out the writings of men/women who have spent their life studying the details of the text. They are the ones who know the issues (etc). Some non-Christian guy, who has certain biases and has not studied the texts in detail, is not a good source for anything on this subject. ​

 

[billwald]

Denominations which teach sola generally also teach that only people ordained by the denomination can "officially" interpret. Official interpretations become "statements of faith," religious extra biblical dogma.

 

[Martin]

Denominations which teach sola generally also teach that only people ordained by the denomination can "officially" interpret. Official interpretations become "statements of faith," religious extra biblical dogma.

What protestant denomination(s) that believes in sola scriptura teaches that only ordained people can interpret the Bible? Please also provide evidence that this is generally true among those who believe/teach sola scriptura. Thanks.

 

[nate]

I base my beliefs on Scripture but actually do so by using tradition. For me when someone says the Scriptures are their only authority then in essence they become their own boss. Trust me you can get Scripture to support even the wackiest claims if you twist it or read it through your own interpetation. My problem is not with Sola Scriptura alone but with the fact that those who hold this view basically interpet Scripture to fit their theology. Rather than using time tested Church approved tradition.
In Christ,
Nate

 

[annsni]

Sure, you can take sections of Scripture and make them say what you want it to say but Scripture must be interpreted with Scripture. When you do this, it says what it says. In our church (a Protestant church) and every other church I've been to, we believe in the priesthood of the believer and every believer is able to understand what the Bible says.

The Catholic church has put tradition on par with or even put it above Scripture (if the Bible doesn't agree, they don't worry about that). Yet the Bible says "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Col. 2:8)

Here is something from John Ankerberg's site

First we must define what "Sola Scriptura" means: Scripture is the sole source of written divine revelation and is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith and practice for the Church. Everything that one needs to know, understand and believe for salvation is found in the Scriptures. The Scriptures (as the sufficient rule of faith) do not refer us to or point us to any other rule of faith. Given this definition, there are at least nine biblical justifications for Sola Scriptura.

1. All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and useful for reproof and correction of error (2 Timothy 3:16). Since Scripture is used to correct and reprove then it must be the authoritative standard by which everything else is judged for its truthfulness.

2. Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34). The character of God is on the line. "God is not a man that He should lie... and hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good (Numbers 23:19). Submitting to the authority of God’s revealed word will guide us in His perfect will.

3. Christ used the authority of Scripture to rebuke Satan’s attempt to deceive Him (Matthew 4:1-11). He gave prepositional statements to accurately convey the truth that Satan attempted to distort. Jesus was our perfect model for rebuking deception.

4. Jesus used the authority of Scriptures to rebuke false teachers (Matthew 22:29). The only way false teachers can be confronted and exposed is in the power of God’s Word.

5. Repentant sinners are saved by hearing and believing the Word (Ephesians 1:13-14). The integrity of the Gospel must be maintained and proclaimed for true conversions (Gal. 1:6-9).

6. Jesus prayed for Christians to be sanctified (set apart) by the truth of His Word (John 17:17). Christians must separate themselves from apostates and false teachers (2 Cor. 6:14-17). God uses His word to divide and to show which people have His approval (1 Cor. 11:19).

7. One must look to the authority of Scripture to be set free from religious deception and become a disciple of Christ (John 8:31-32). Those who follow the traditions and teachings of men remain in legalistic bondage and are often led astray.

8. Christ rebuked the religious leaders for nullifying the Word of God with their tradition (Mark 7:13). Any tradition or teaching that nullifies the Scriptures must be exposed and renounced so others will not be deceived (Eph. 5:11).

9. The Scriptures were written to all people, not to popes or the Magisterium to be interpreted for lay people. Paul delivered the uncorrupted Word of God to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2). Anytime we allow others to interpret God’s word for us, we leave ourselves open to deception. That is why the Lord Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

Ann

 

[annsni]

For me when someone says the Scriptures are their only authority then in essence they become their own boss.

Ummm - no. When you need tradition to interpret Scripture, you are making the tradition the authority. When I say that Scripture is my only authority, I am not my own boss - Scripture is the authority! I may want it to say one thing but when I study it, it may say something that I really don't want to hear.

My problem is not with Sola Scriptura alone but with the fact that those who hold this view basically interpet Scripture to fit their theology. Rather than using time tested Church approved tradition.

"time tested Church approved tradition"??? That's a laugh! Church 'approved' traditions have changed over and over! God's Word stands true forever - NOT traditions. I'm going to go with the Word of God to tell me what's truth - not a group of sinful men.

Ann

 

[rbell]

My problem is not with Sola Scriptura alone but with the fact that those who hold this view basically interpet Scripture to fit their theology. Rather than using time tested Church approved tradition.
Nate

"Time tested Church approved tradition" allowed for the sale of indulgences. That really bothered that Luther fellow.

 

[nate]

Ummm - no. When you need tradition to interpret Scripture, you are making the tradition the authority. When I say that Scripture is my only authority, I am not my own boss - Scripture is the authority! I may want it to say one thing but when I study it, it may say something that I really don't want to hear.

I have seen incredibly stupid doctrines supported by people from the Scriptures. Why? Because when you read Scripture you have to interpet it by something and most Sola Scriptura subscribers choose to use their doctrine or opinion.

"time tested Church approved tradition"??? That's a laugh! Church 'approved' traditions have changed over and over! God's Word stands true forever - NOT traditions. I'm going to go with the Word of God to tell me what's truth - not a group of sinful men.
Ann

Some speculate that the Arians were the first "sola Scriptura" proponets. Changed over and over? Council of Nicea was held in 325 if the Universal Church had not upheld Christ diety we true believers might have been the Jehovah's Witness while mainstream Christianity would have bought into the arian heresy. I also go to the Word of God but I use tradition as my guide to interpetation rather than my doctrinal beliefs.
In Christ,
Nate

 

[nate]

"Time tested Church approved tradition" allowed for the sale of indulgences. That really bothered that Luther fellow.

No that wasn't "time tested" and in fact was only around for maybe 200 years. I'm specifically referring to Church history prior to 1100 A.D. Even more so the Church Councils.

 

[nate]

If tradition disagrees with Scripture then I will stand by the Scripture. But the point is traditional Church doctrine and tradition agrees and even more complements Scripture. For instance all 7 ecumenical councils made orthodox what most Baptist believe. Sola Scriptura--yes if used wisely.
In Christ,
Nate

 

[Martin]

For me when someone says the Scriptures are their only authority then in essence they become their own boss. Trust me you can get Scripture to support even the wackiest claims if you twist it or read it through your own interpetation.

==Well that is not really true, is it? Nope. There are certain rules that apply when a person seeks to understand the meaning of a given text.
For example, paying attention to context, grammer, the historical setting (etc). If a person follows a basic grammatical/historical/cultural/contextual approach to Scripture they will be fine and will not, as you suggest, twist Scripture to "support even the wackiest of claims". People who "go off the deep end" do so because they did not, for whatever reason, follow basic rules of interpretation.

My problem is not with Sola Scriptura alone but with the fact that those who hold this view basically interpet Scripture to fit their theology.

==And those, like yourself, who use tradition will often pay heed to traditions that contradict Scripture. Most Christians who hold to sola scriptura hold to certain doctrines because (a) those doctrines are in Scripture or (b) they have adopted your approach and are paying heed to tradition (usually against Scripture).

Rather than using time tested Church approved tradition.

==What Church? The Methodist? Baptist? Catholic? Mormon? etc, etc, etc?

The fact is there is no "Church approved" tradition. Different churches may have different "traditions" but there is no overall tradition (as your comment implies).

Also, if by chance, you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church's "time tested...tradition" I would challenge you to test their tradition not by time but by the Word of God. Or do you value your traditions, whatever they may be, more than Scripture?

 

[Martin]

Some speculate that the Arians were the first "sola Scriptura" proponets. Changed over and over?

==What? Who are "some"? Please give names.

I also go to the Word of God but I use tradition as my guide to interpetation rather than my doctrinal beliefs.

==Let's be honest about that statement for a moment, ok?

You are critical of those who use their doctrinal beliefs to interpret Scripture yet you yourself admit to using doctrinal statement(s) (ie..tradition) to interpret Scripture. You use man made tradition to interpret Scripture just as they use doctrinal systems invented by man. The ultimant test of truth is Scripture; not tradition or doctrinal statements. Anyone who uses tradition, or doctrinal statements, to interpret Scripture is in danger of falling into heresy. The Scriptures should be studied, and I mean studied carefully. None of this sloppy stuff that often passes for study today. I mean digging deep into the grammer of Scripture, the context, the historical settings and cultures, etc. One should, of course, do this with a prayerful attitude. Following traditions and creeds, uncritically, is lazy and dangerous. I don't care if we are talking about the SBC statement of faith or Roman Catholic traditions. All of these should be tested by Scripture. That is, of course, a Scriptural position.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not until 8 months ago did I ever hear of this phrase. SOLA SCRIPTURA. I was never a Bible Reader until I turned 40 three years ago. I only listened to the Pastor teach every Sunday morning, night and Wednesday night.

Then one day a fellow co-worker were talking about his Catholic Eucharist and he read some scripture to me. Since I started paying attention to what the Pastor said when I was 13, I have never had a Pastor read these verses that this Catholic was presenting to me. I told him about never heard these being read by a Pastor in 27 years of listening. He responded:

At this point I interrupted him, and asked him who these Early Church Fathers were. And proceeded to explain. He told me there are a lot of resources on the Internet. He said do a search on Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura. I told him I had heard the Pastor in brief mention Bible Alone. He also told me to sit down on Saturday and read the New Testament from beginning to end and see if I could discover where the Bible says it is the Sole Source of Authority, etc, etc, etc.

I had heard the Pastor in brief mention Bible Alone. So I sat down to read the New Testament in order to see what other things I was not being taught and whether this Bible Alone was actually biblical. I could not find any explicit verse that stated that the Bible itself is the Final Authority. Then I read online all the arguments for and against. The against is more plausible and more logical.

One passage that is never cited as a proof text for​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT]is [FONT=Arial,Arial]2 Peter 1:20-2:1[/FONT]. That's hardly surprising. In this passage Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: "[FONT=Arial,Arial]No prophecy [/FONT]of scripture is a matter of [FONT=Arial,Arial]one's own interpretation[/FONT]." Then Peter warns: "But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there [FONT=Arial,Arial]will be [/FONT]false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in [FONT=Arial,Arial]destructive heresies[/FONT], even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet 2:1). Note that under divine inspiration Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies! ​

The Greek word that is translated as "heresies" comes from the verb

[FONT=Arial,Arial]haireomai[/FONT], which means " to take or to choose for oneself." In the first century it had the negative meaning of going off on one's own in rebellion to the established teaching. Thus, in Acts 24:14 some translations render it as "sect". ​

This message by Paul would manifest itself with Martin Luther:​

[FONT=Arial,Italic]

Sola scriptura ​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]


[/FONT]

is clearly unworkable. Individual interpretation of the Bible has lead to the uncontrollable fragmentation within Protestantism. The total number of Protestant denominations is rapidly approaching 30,000. This scandalous disunity embraces both doctrinal and moral issues. Nor is there any possibility within the framework of [FONT=Arial,Italic]sola scriptura [/FONT]to mend this fracturing. Even Luther, who introduced this virus of chaos into Christianity, came to see the excesses to which it was headed.​

After he broke from Rome Luther wrote that the Bible could be interpreted by anyone "even the humble miller's maid, nay, a child of nine."

However, later in his career he called the Bible the "heresy book." In 1525 he wrote: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet." ​

The vital issue with [FONT=Arial,Italic]sola scriptura [/FONT]is, of course, interpretation. [FONT=Arial,Italic]Sola scriptura [/FONT]asserts that the Holy Spirit guides the Bible believing Christian in correctly interpreting the word of God in matters essential to the faith. Since Protestants reject the reality of an infallible interpretative authority within the Church, how does one reconcile differences? ​

Forget for a moment ignore the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants. For illustration purposes let's consider an issue debated within Protestant groups - baptismal regeneration. One group teaches that baptism is essential. A second group teaches that baptism is desirable, but not essential. A third group rejects baptism altogether. Each group cites the Bible as its source. Which is the correct interpretation? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit is responsible for this confusion? Did God give his people an infallible book without giving his children any way of correctly interpreting it?​

The statement in 2 Peter 1:20 is so strong in its opposition to idea of [FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura [/FONT]that one Protestant translation attempts to subvert its meaning by inserting words that are not in the original. Thus the NIV intentionally mistranslates "one's own interpretation" with "by the prophet's own interpretation." However, [FONT=Arial,Arial]tou prophetou [/FONT]is not found in the Greek text. ​

This highlights another problem with​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]sola scriptura[/FONT]. Not only does it impose ones individual interpretations on the text of the Bible, but individual interpretation becomes the basis of replacing the inspired text!











​

well good luck with that!:thumbs:

 

[mojoala]

Originally Posted by rbell
"Time tested Church approved tradition" allowed for the sale of indulgences. That really bothered that Luther fellow.

Yes that was a problem. It was not a Church problem, it was personal problem. Jesus did say we would have weeds mixed in the wheat.

Just recently in the next town, An ASSEMBLY OF GOD pastor was convicted of embezzling from the church.

There are pedofile priests in the RCC.
There are also pedofiles in the non-catholic sects.
In the last 2 years in my try county area, 3 Protestant Pastors have been charged and convicted of Child Molestation.

You will have corruption even in the most pious of church organizations. That is a given. It's how you respond to it, is what a makes a difference. One can respond in a sinful way or one can respond in a Christian way. You have the choice by freewill.

Protestant Christians have bombed abortion clinics and killed abortion doctors. Not a christian way to handle the problem. The end does not justify the means. You can't commit a sin to prevent a sin.

 

[mojoala]

Historically, Both sides have murdered and tortured each other in order to prevent a sin from being committed. But you have to realize that those atrocities were done by those in the past. We of the past were barbaric, bloodthirsty, and controlling. Man has come a long way but has a long way to go. Some of us still have the bloodlust and vengeful nature of our ancestors.

This great country of ours was founded on the bloodshed of native Americans that rightfully own this country. We invaded them, not the otherway around. Christians slaughtering those that fought to retain what is rightfully theirs. WE INVADED, CONQUERED, SLAUGHTERED, RAPED, AND PILLIAGED. AND WE WERE SELF PROCLAIMED CHRISTIANS IN THE ACT OF THESE ACTIONS. Ironic isn't it?

We Protestants want to point to the Catholics of Europe and point out their crusades and inquistions, but refuse to admit our own. The Plank is very big in our eyes.