Sola Scriptura

[billwald]

The problem is the Holy Spirit

The problem with Sola is that the Holy Spirit doesn't seem to involve herself in any method of interpretation.

 

[nate]

==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.

apparently very few follow this rules. That's why there is some 3,500 odd denominations. Each claiming Sola Scriptura each differing in doctrine.

=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).

All 7 ecumenical councils were held by the universal Church not just one denominaion.

 

[Martin]

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.

==Are you aware that it was the Catholics who murdered those who agreed with Luther, etc?

 

[Martin]

apparently very few follow this rules. That's why there is some 3,500 odd denominations. Each claiming Sola Scriptura each differing in doctrine.

==Very few do, you are correct on that, and neither do the Roman Catholics. They hold to more than their fair share of false doctrines.

 

[mojoala]

The problem with Sola is that the Holy Spirit doesn't seem to involve herself in any method of interpretation.

The Holy Spirit is a female?

 

[mojoala]

==Are you aware that it was the Catholics who murdered those who agreed with Luther, etc?

Yes. And you point is? Should we go into detail about the murder of Catholics by Protestants? NO! Reason?

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.

 

[mojoala]

Originally Posted by Martin ==Are you aware that it was the Catholics who murdered those who agreed with Luther, etc?

Let us put on the shoes of the RCC back in Luther's day.

There was an established Doctrine that more or less held firm for 1500 years.

Martin Luther sees some corruption within the Church.

He decides to Rebel and create New Doctrines called: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Martin believed in a something different. Heresy means something different.

People of the day were Barbaric and Uncivlized and Bloodthirsty. We did not even start to begin becoming non-barbaric, Civiilized and Bloodthirst until the late 1800s when we saw the need to provide education to the poor on a worldwide basis.

So If I was a RCC back in the day, and we had Heretics out there creating New Doctrines that contradicted current Doctrine, I would not hesitate to kill them either.

One has to look at the context of the time and era in history.

Islamist has a whole have not even reached a civilized state yet. They are killing us who are the Heretics(Infidels) in their minds.

 

[Martin]

Let us put on the shoes of the RCC back in Luther's day.

==Let the situational ethics and justifications of murder begin? I hope not.

There was an established Doctrine that more or less held firm for 1500 years.

==Not true. Many of the doctrines Luther had problems with were not taught by the apostles or early christians. These were doctrines that arose over a period of time and were promoted by the heretical Roman Catholic Church.

Martin Luther sees some corruption within the Church.

==That is an understatement.

He decides to Rebel and create New Doctrines called: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Martin believed in a something different. Heresy means something different.

==Martin Luther protested a unBiblical system. He had every right to do so. Though he did not originally intend to break with the Catholic Church.

People of the day were Barbaric and Uncivlized and Bloodthirsty. We did not even start to begin becoming non-barbaric, Civiilized and Bloodthirst until the late 1800s when we saw the need to provide education to the poor on a worldwide basis.

==I am not sure things are that good today...

So If I was a RCC back in the day, and we had Heretics out there creating New Doctrines that contradicted current Doctrine, I would not hesitate to kill them either.

==Well at least you admit it.

One has to look at the context of the time and era in history.

==Morality, and God's Law, does not change. I will say this about the Catholic Church or John Calvin. Sorry no situational ethics allowed here...

 

[mojoala]

==Not true. Many of the doctrines Luther had problems with were not taught by the apostles or early christians. These were doctrines that arose over a period of time and were promoted by the heretical Roman Catholic Church.

Not true. Studying the RCC, I can say they are right about this. All Doctrine can be proven from Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But first you have to delete the Intial Programming done in your brain and discard the subsequent conditioning which ultimately gives someone preconcieved ideas and notions. Second you have to open yourself to the Holy Spirit.

 

[mojoala]

Martin Luther protested a unBiblical system

That is your belief. One day you may read the bible objectively and from a 1st century standpoint instead of a 21st century standpoint.

 

[mojoala]

I am not sure things are that good today...

I agree, but they are better, at least in the civilized countries like ours.

 

[mojoala]

Well at least you admit it.

I have to, in order to be true to my self and God.

 

[DHK]

That is your belief. One day you may read the bible objectively and from a 1st century standpoint instead of a 21st century standpoint.

Martin Luther did not post an unbiblical system.
When he went to Rome he was aghast at the practice of the priests who:
--sold indulgences,
--commanded penance to be done.
--in general the total corruption of the Catholic Church. He studied the Bible and found that many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church were unbiblical, and in fact anti-biblical. The Catholic Church does not believe in salvation by grace through faith, but rather salvation by works. This Luther had learned was totally unbiblical.

Other heretical doctrines:
Those concerning Mary:
--the assumption
--her continual virginity
--her snlessness
--her immaculate conception.
--her "co-redemptrix
All these heretical doctrines cannot be found in the Bible.

Purgatory. It takes away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. Those who belief in this heresy don't believe that Christ paid the penalty for their sins.
--Purgatory naturally leads into the heresy of indulgences,
--and consequently the heresy of praying to the dead.
--idolatry: praying to images. (the stations of the cross, for example)

The sacrifice of the Mass is heresy in itself
--transubstantiation is a heresy.

All of the above cannot be found or substantiated by the Word of God.
The Assumption of Mary was not even made official doctrine of the Catholic Church until 1950. The RCC is a church of convenience. They add or subtract doctrine at their conveiniece, including the massacre of innocent women and children.
DHK

 

[Martin]

That is your belief. One day you may read the bible objectively and from a 1st century standpoint instead of a 21st century standpoint.

==Two things...

1. I spend my time studying first century history in the Roman Empire and Judea. However I am not able to read the Bible from a first century standpoint, and neither are you. Why not? Because we were not born in, nor did we grow up in, nor do we live in first century Judea under Roman occupation. While we can know alot about them, it is not possible to be 100% like them since we have totally different Sitz im Leben then they did.

2. There is no way to read the Bible, or any other document, "objectively". We all bring certain bias, beliefs, etc, to every text we read. The Bible is no exception.

How do we overcome all of this? By prayerful and careful historical, cultural, textual, contextual, grammatical study. Any other type of hermeneutic can lead down dangerous paths of false teachings.

Studying the RCC, I can say they are right about this. All Doctrine can be proven from Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But first you have to delete the Intial Programming done in your brain and discard the subsequent conditioning which ultimately gives someone preconcieved ideas and notions.

==In other words you want me, and everyone else, to accept the Roman Catholic version of things. You don't want the careful hermeneutic I spoke of above. You want to read the Scripture through the lense of Rome. I am familiar with Roman Catholic teachings and I can say, on the authority of Scripture, that they make many errors. Studying the Scripture through Rome's glasses is a dangerous thing.

Second you have to open yourself to the Holy Spirit

==One of the reasons I know Rome is wrong, on many issues, is my careful study of the Scriptures. Another reason is my prayerful study of the Scriptures. I allow the Holy Spirit to speak to me via His Word. I dare not try to put man's traditions on the same level as His Holy Word.

 

[Eric B]

Let us put on the shoes of the RCC back in Luther's day.

There was an established Doctrine that more or less held firm for 1500 years.

Martin Luther sees some corruption within the Church.

He decides to Rebel and create New Doctrines called: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Martin believed in a something different. Heresy means something different.

People of the day were Barbaric and Uncivlized and Bloodthirsty. We did not even start to begin becoming non-barbaric, Civiilized and Bloodthirst until the late 1800s when we saw the need to provide education to the poor on a worldwide basis.

So If I was a RCC back in the day, and we had Heretics out there creating New Doctrines that contradicted current Doctrine, I would not hesitate to kill them either.

One has to look at the context of the time and era in history.

Islamist has a whole have not even reached a civilized state yet. They are killing us who are the Heretics(Infidels) in their minds.

I think that says a lot of that form of Christendom and its 1500 years of established doctrine. There is no excuse of "well that's just the way we were". Isn't Christ supposed to change us into new creatures? The Word of God was the same as it was after 1800, or is our "civility" now yet another one of our "modern innovations" like Sola Scriptura? (and perhaps the barbaric way was really the truth). "Islam is still the same way", well, was the Church of the past just as false as Islam, and just a cultural identity that had no real bearing on spiritual life? And I know the protestants were the same way, but look where they came out of!

 

[mojoala]

I think that says a lot of that form of Christendom and its 1500 years of established doctrine. There is no excuse of "well that's just the way we were". Isn't Christ supposed to change us into new creatures? The Word of God was the same as it was after 1800, or is our "civility" now yet another one of our "modern innovations" like Sola Scriptura? (and perhaps the barbaric way was really the truth). "Islam is still the same way", well, was the Church of the past just as false as Islam, and just a cultural identity that had no real bearing on spiritual life? And I know the protestants were the same way, but look where they came out of!

My issue with sola scriptura is that the adherents of it point in all possible directions and base their positions on Scripture alone:

Trinity or no Trinity

Sabbath or Sunday worship

divinity of Christ or no divinity of Christ

eternity of Christ or the creation of Christ

infant baptism or no infant baptism

necessity of baptism or baptism not necessary

soul death or no soul death or soul sleep

existence of the devil or not

predestination or free will

double predestination or not

music in church with instruments or not

snake handling or snake free worship

OSAS, or OSASies or not

any of a dozen more more versions of "rapture"

pacificism or not

man is totally depraved or basically good (possibly damaged)

man must work toward sanctification - or not

speaking in tongues required to prove presence of the Holy Spirit or not

The list is endless.

None of these problems existed prior to Luther. God is not the a God of Confusion. But we have a chaotic confusion system within non-catholicism(the essence of Protestantism).

 

[mojoala]

1. I spend my time studying first century history in the Roman Empire and Judea. However I am not able to read the Bible from a first century standpoint, and neither are you. Why not? Because we were not born in, nor did we grow up in, nor do we live in first century Judea under Roman occupation. While we can know alot about them, it is not possible to be 100% like them since we have totally different Sitz im Leben then they did.

That is why I have immersed myself into the study of the Judaic faith and culture. I have joined two Jewish forums and have asked specific questions about the B.C. Judaic culture.

 

[mojoala]

2. There is no way to read the Bible, or any other document, "objectively". We all bring certain bias, beliefs, etc, to every text we read. The Bible is no exception.

I use to do the same thing. So I had to sit down and purge myself of all preconcieved bias and notions and ideas and forced my self to read the bible objectively. Even then, it was hard. I will PM you about an experiment I did.

 

[mojoala]

==In other words you want me, and everyone else, to accept the Roman Catholic version of things. You don't want the careful hermeneutic I spoke of above. You want to read the Scripture through the lense of Rome. I am familiar with Roman Catholic teachings and I can say, on the authority of Scripture, that they make many errors. Studying the Scripture through Rome's glasses is a dangerous thing.

Likewise studying the scriptures thru Protestant glasses is equally dangerously. Just look at 3 posts earlier I wrote about this. No I don't want anyone to accept anything. I am just putting out what I have discovered and it more or less coincides with the RCC.

Are you familiar with James White of Alpha & Omega ministiies? He is an active official debater and an active catholic basher.

He once debated Patrick Madrid on the subject of "Sola Scriptura" in front of an entire congregation of Protestants. Obviously he lost this debate. Why? The victor always publishes the history. Patrick Madrid offers the 2 CD pack of the debate. I had to purchase it because I have read all of James White's books so I wondered how he lost such a debate. James White also teaches Greek. Yep Patrick won alright.

Another interesting fact about James White. His sister Patty Bonds converted to Catholicism. She grew up in a totally anti-catholic envirnment such as I did. She works for the Coming Home Network.

2 years ago I would not have had even have considered looking into the RCC, but one night I was flipping thru the channels and 'Coming Home' was on EWTN and Patty Bonds was on telling aspects of her conversion. I was interested. The host made a statement about how 357 Protestant Pastors joined the Catholic Church in 2005. Half of them are Baptist. I called for more info on this.

2001 - 201 converted.
2002 - 267 converted.
2003 - 310 converted.
2004 - 311 converted.
2005 - 357 converted.
2006 - 459 converted.

Estimated the 2007 number will be near 500.

I wanted to know why these Protestant Pastors are converting.

HALF ARE BAPTIST PASTORS....

My journey leads me attend RCIA in the fall. I will have to make a decision by Easter 2007 whether to join the RCC or to join at least some Protestant Church that mostly resembles the Early Church, and those are the Lutherans and Episcopals. A more of a middle ground would be the Eastern Orthodox. but that is out of the question since many of those don't exist in the United States.

 

[mojoala]

One of the reasons I know Rome is wrong, on many issues, is my careful study of the Scriptures. Another reason is my prayerful study of the Scriptures. I allow the Holy Spirit to speak to me via His Word. I dare not try to put man's traditions on the same level as His Holy Word.

And that private interpretation has resulted in this:

My issue with sola scriptura is that the adherents of it point in all possible directions and base their positions on Scripture alone:

Trinity or no Trinity
Sabbath or Sunday worship
divinity of Christ or no divinity of Christ
eternity of Christ or the creation of Christ
infant baptism or no infant baptism
necessity of baptism or baptism not necessary
soul death or no soul death or soul sleep
existence of the devil or not
predestination or free will
double predestination or not
music in church with instruments or not
snake handling or snake free worship
OSAS, or OSASies or not
any of a dozen more more versions of "rapture"
pacificism or not
man is totally depraved or basically good (possibly damaged)
man must work toward sanctification - or not
speaking in tongues required to prove presence of the Holy Spirit or not

the list is endless

The Holy Spirit can not possibly lead everyone to different interpretations. God is not a God of confusion.