Sola Scriptura

[TCGreek]

1. Stop quoting death people and their documents as if they were on the same level as Scripture.

2. There's nothing intrinsically wrong in quoting them, but don't give the impression that they're on the same level as Scripture.

3. Let's work with Scripture first, and if the theologians of the past correspond in their conclusions, then we may quote them.

4. But if we haven't settled the matter scripturally, then there's no need to quote dead theologians and their documents.

5. If the truth be told, they were not always right in their various conclusions, as witnessed by some of their documents.

Ps,

I still subscribe to the doctrines of grace.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What is the purpose of this thread?

 

[TCGreek]

RB, to affirm Sola Scriptura to settle all matters of doctrine and faith, not the documents of dead theologians.

 

[Jerome]

"Be a Bible man, go so far as the Bible, but not an inch beyond it. Though Calvin should beckon you, and you esteem him, or Wesley should beckon, and you esteem him, keep to the Scripture, to the Scripture only. If your minister should go astray, pray that he may be brought back again, but do not follow him. Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than this book teaches you, do not, I pray you, give any heed to us — no, not for a single moment. Here is the only infallibility ; — the Holy Ghost's witness in this book."
---Charles Spurgeon, 20 Dec. 1874, A.M.

 

[Dale-c]

Then I shall stop quoting CG Finney

Just kidding. I agree TC though there are two valid reasons for quoting dead theologians.
1. To gain insight on what other Christians have believed and so that we may learn from them just as we would learn from living theologians.

2. To learn from church history. To see what others have believed and why. to learn from their success and failures.

People all through history have dealt with the same issues that we face today.

But all that is a supplement to the Bible.
It is a tool to aid in our understanding of the Bible.

Most importantly, and I think this is you point, there is no authority in those writings.

They are useful as far as they help us to understand THE authority of God's Word.

 

[TCGreek]

Dale-C, I'm with you all the way.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I agree. Though I have not run into anyone that equates dead or alive theologians with Scripture. Maybe Roman Catholics?

 

[Allan]

I agree. Though I have not run into anyone that equates dead or alive theologians with Scripture. Maybe Roman Catholics?

He is talking about quoting of those theologians, writers, creeds,, confessions, ect.. consistantly regarding disputes of views and so forth instead bringing to bear the scripture and discussing the 'scripture'.

I see it quite a bit, (and do it myself at times to ) when someone brings up a certain point or position many will run to various works of theologians or Confessions as if they are the end all of the matter. There is little expounding of the scripture and those passages which may corrolate.

It might be just me but I think he (and many others) would like to get back to discussing the Word of God and not 'so much' the works of men.

 

[Allan]

I agree TC though there are two valid reasons for quoting dead theologians.
1. To gain insight on what other Christians have believed and so that we may learn from them just as we would learn from living theologians.

2. To learn from church history. To see what others have believed and why. to learn from their success and failures.

People all through history have dealt with the same issues that we face today.

But all that is a supplement to the Bible.
It is a tool to aid in our understanding of the Bible.

Most importantly, and I think this is you point, there is no authority in those writings.

They are useful as far as they help us to understand THE authority of God's Word.

I agree with you here as well Dale.

 

[Whowillgo]

I fully agree and actually am enjoying this thread. Many times when confronted by a legalist attitude concerning various versions of the Bible, my first question to them is this. "Do you use commentaries, if you do why would you use an uninspired book to define an inspired book?"

 

[ReformedBaptist]

He is talking about quoting of those theologians, writers, creeds,, confessions, ect.. consistantly regarding disputes of views and so forth instead bringing to bear the scripture and discussing the 'scripture'.

I see it quite a bit, (and do it myself at times to ) when someone brings up a certain point or position many will run to various works of theologians or Confessions as if they are the end all of the matter. There is little expounding of the scripture and those passages which may corrolate.

It might be just me but I think he (and many others) would like to get back to discussing the Word of God and not 'so much' the works of men.

If the person quoting the theologian, writer, creed, confession, et. is doing so because they believe those writing are equal to that of Scripture, then I agree. But the use of the divines and especially of creeds/confessions as a tool to clarify and define a position or point, I wholly disagree.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Here's one of my favorite quotes on the subject:

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. -C.H. Spurgeon

I am of the opinion, and more so lately, that non-confessional or anti-confessional Christianity is a breeding ground for heresy.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1. Stop quoting death people and their documents as if they were on the same level as Scripture.

2. There's nothing intrinsically wrong in quoting them, but don't give the impression that they're on the same level as Scripture.

3. Let's work with Scripture first, and if the theologians of the past correspond in their conclusions, then we may quote them.

4. But if we haven't settled the matter scripturally, then there's no need to quote dead theologians and their documents.

5. If the truth be told, they were not always right in their various conclusions, as witnessed by some of their documents.

Ps,

I still subscribe to the doctrines of grace.

By my nature of taking up the other side (I tend to be a bit impish but like a good argument) I will like to engage into this topic.

Your first point kind of builds your primary argument. Dead people's writing are not as authoritative as scripture. Scripture Alone is authoritative. My argument to this is two fold.

1. Where does scripture get its authority? What does scripture actually say regarding itself? However, just to point out the aurgement will also view a book saying something of itself is not authoritative in it self. Ie the Koran says it is inspired so that cannot be a litmus test. However, my contention is that scripture it self will say it is reliant on other sources outside of itself and together it is authoritative. How do you believe that inspiration took place? It seems most of the NT writers were not under the impression that their writing was inspired save that of the Apocalypse of John. Is Sola Scriptura's contention that we have a dictated book?

2. Are some of these same "dead men" which are not to be quoted responsible in the canonization and selection of scripture? If so then those who made these determination may have a valid point of thought regarding scripture.

 

[Deacon]

I forget who said it, Irenaeus perhaps,

"Don't go beyond what is written"

Rob

 

[ReformedBaptist]

A "no creed but the Bible" idea runs this way...

"To arrive at the truth we must dimiss religious prejudices...We must let God speak for himself...Our appeal is to the Bible for truth."


Think you agree?

(the quote is from "Let God be True" published by the Jehovah's Witnesses)

 

[Marcia]

A "no creed but the Bible" idea runs this way...

"To arrive at the truth we must dimiss religious prejudices...We must let God speak for himself...Our appeal is to the Bible for truth."


Think you agree?

(the quote is from "Let God be True" published by the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Except what they mean by "religious prejudices" is Christianity, and what they mean by the Bible is the Watchtower Bible with its changes. This statement is quite ironic considering they view everything acc. to how the Watchtower tells them tp see it. talk about "prejudices!" Ha!

 

[Allan]

Except what they mean by "religious prejudices" is Christianity, and what they mean by the Bible is the Watchtower Bible with its changes. This statement is quite ironic considering they view everything acc. to how the Watchtower tells them tp see it. talk about "prejudices!" Ha!

Agreed! But it appears from his post that RB wants us to be told by certain men what the bible says and how to view it. It is 'this' train of thought (not that it is what RB is actaully saying because I know he is not) that exaults the works of men speaking about the Word of God to a spiritually unhealthy position of it being equal to it.

And thus the point of the thread I think - Being let's talk in our own words primarily about the scriptures and use those other good works of men when there is a need to clarify. But let us use our own words more often than those words from another, or creeds, or confessions, or ... ect..

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Agreed! But it appears from his post that RB wants us to be told by certain men what the bible says and how to view it. It is 'this' train of thought (not that it is what RB is actaully saying because I know he is not) that exaults the works of men speaking about the Word of God to a spiritually unhealthy position of it being equal to it.

And thus the point of the thread I think - Being let's talk in our own words primarily about the scriptures and use those other good works of men when there is a need to clarify. But let us use our own words more often than those words from another, or creeds, or confessions, or ... ect..

I disagree. I will start a thread tomorrow concerning the use of creeds/confessions. btw, do you use one as your own?

 

[Allan]

I disagree. I will start a thread tomorrow concerning the use of creeds/confessions. btw, do you use one as your own?

No. I agree with some of them and to a larger or smaller degree on the points of others. I also have not said that creeds or confessions have no benifit nor that they are unbiblical.

It is when we place undue emphasis upon them that they take on an unbiblical import in our spiritual lives.

There is nothing wrong in having them except hoping that they are not abused or given overdue emphasis. However by the same token there isn't anything wrong in not having them either.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No. I agree with some of them and to a larger or smaller degree on the points of others. I also have not said that creeds or confessions have no benifit nor that they are unbiblical.

It is when we place undue emphasis upon them that they take on an unbiblical import in our spiritual lives.

There is nothing wrong in having them except hoping that they are not abused or given overdue emphasis. However by the same token there isn't anything wrong in not having them either.

Well, it should be a good discsussion regarding to the use of them...and confessional and non-confessional Christianity.