Sola Scripture? Part Two

[SpiritualMadMan]

Hmmmm...

I would say the real mark of a cult is the insistence that they are the *only* right ones in all of the religious systems in existence...

Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, states that It is God's Word and Only God's Word as the Final Authority...

The mormons would be in violation because they have added a whole book and consider it equal or a superceeding prophecy over the Bible...

The jw's are in violation because they have made specific changes to The Word of God to support their cultic behavior and deny Our Only Lord Jesus...

Now, as I understand it Sola Scriptura doesn't refuse the rights of group of humans interpretation as to what a given passage means?

In fact for any group to get along it is required to form a consensus to walk together...

The chief issue is that the Bible, however we understand it or interpret it, is our Final Authority...

Each denom has areas of scripture where they differ...

Does that mean they do not believe in Sola Sciptura?

Not neccesarily, because any one human can read a passage an see it differently than another...

If I am going to fellowship with Baptists I must first agree that the Bible is the Final Authority...

Then I must also agree that the denominational interpretation is the correct rendering of the Bible's Message...

While I can come to many solutions entirely on my own...

It is the Standard Interpretation of my denomination that enforces certain behaviors and interpretations...

If in my studies I become convinced that the 'Standard Answer' is not the best answer or is outright incorrect then I have to make a decision as to whether my finding is worth leaving the denomination or not...

I am responsible to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling...

But, I also have the reference testimony of those that have gone before.

If Scofield sees a certain thing in scripture and Thompson saw it differently then I have room to make up my own mind...

But, if both Scofield, Dake, and Thompson all agree, then, I had better be really careful if I come up with a different conclusion...

The reformation was one such decision...

A truth had been hidden by tradition to the point where it was all but stamped out...


Whether we like it our not our Faith, while founded on The Written Word of God as the Final Authority, still relies on the testimony of those that have gone before us...


In the case of Jim Jones and David Koresh no challenge was acceptable to their non-standard interpretation...

But, there we go again...

How did we know it was 'non-standard'?

By, the historical witness of those that had gone before us...

I don't know if I am making sense or not?

But, given all the Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes out there, who all claim to have God's Revelation from His Written Word...

I think we must rely on the witness of those that have gone before for at least some input in any decision to change our core doctrines...

And, when we feel strongly that change is needed we need to carefully consider that history, the reason for it, and the Full Counsel of the Written Word of God...

When we ignore a preachers sermon who is (supposedly) preaching from God's Word we may not be ignoring the intent of God's Written Word...

Think about it if we get irate when a Pentecostal starts spouting of a, "Thus saith The Lord!"...

Shouldn't we also be Berean when a preacher does the same thing?

Mike Sr.

 

[Claudia_T]

Originally posted by DHK:
Check out 1Tim.4:1-3
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

When an organization or church (denomination) commands their members to believe one way or another, then they take away private Bible Study. They take away sola scriptura. They take away freedom of religion. They take away their responsibility before God to study the Bible on their own.
This is what the Catholic Church has done with the magesterium and the catechism.

For example: What does it mean to be born again? Here is one of the most essential doctrinnes of the Bible. Jesus said "Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The Catholic Catechism states that to be born again is to be baptized. That is the meaning of being born again. There is no room for any negotiation from that position. It is the heresy of baptismal regeneration. The church has declared it to be so. Every Catholic must believe it no matter how much Bible study may prove otherwise. It is the Catholic doctrine, a doctrine of demons, enforced among their members.
Likewise the example given in this passage of Scripture--forbidding to marry--as they enforce among their priesthood. Celibacy! It is a doctrine of demons. There is no soul liberty. There is no choice. It is forced among the clergy. This the RCC's private interpretation. It is their's and no one else's

The Mormon's and SDA's enforce certain dietary restrictions among their people when the Bible states that all things are good and notthing to be refused. The Bible says that this is a doctrine of demmons. This is their private interpretation that they are enforcing among their people and taking away from them their right to come to their own conclusion through the Scriptures.
The private interpretation spoken of in 2Peter 1:20 refers to churches as a whole, organizations, etc.
DHK

First of all, the Seventh Day Adventist Church enforces dietary restrictions upon no one. I ought to know because I am one.

Secondly, you are misinterpreting that Bible passage:


I Timothy 4:4 says,
“Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused”

This scripture passage (verse 3) refers to meats “which God has
created to be received with thanksgiving” by His people.
These meats are the clean meats listed in Leviticus Chapter 11
and Deuteronomy chapter 14. Verse 4 makes it clear that all creatures of God
are good and not to be refused, provided that they are among those that are
among those created “to be received with thanksgiving”. (the clean animals).
verse 5 tells why these animals (or foods) are acceptable: they are “sanctified”
by God’s Word, which says they are clean, and by a “prayer of blessing,”
which is offered before the meal. Please note, however, that God will destroy
people who try to “sanctify themselves” while eating unclean foods (Isaiah 66:17).


COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS

*Meats: From Strong's Greek Dictionary- word G1033. broma, bro'-mah; from the base of G977; food (lit. or fig.), espec. (cer.) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals.

The word translated meats in 1 Tim 4:3 actually means foods in a generic sense, not just animal flesh, so this passage speaks in the broadest sense of commanding fasting.

Can. 1249 - All members of the Christian faithful in their own way are bound to do penance in virtue of divine law; in order that all may be joined in a common observance of penance, penitential days are prescribed in which the Christian faithful in a special way pray, exercise works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their responsibilities more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence according to the norm of the following canons.

Can. 1250 - All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the universal Church.

Can 1251 - Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can 1252 - All persons who have completed their fourteenth year are bound by the law of abstinence; all adults are bound by the law of fast up to the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors and parents are to see to it that minors who are not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are educated in an authentic sense of penance


These are characteristics of the Catholic Church. Forbidding to marry and Commanding to abstain from meats.

It is the same church that was being formed when Paul talked about it here:

2Thes:2:4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Paul in verse 3 said there was going to be a falling away of the church...In verse 7 he said said "the mystery of iniquity" had already begun...

This was the beginning of the formation of the papacy. Thats why it says people were going to give heed to "seducing spirits"... the catholic church is steeped in spiritualism... based on their false doctrine that claims the dead arent really dead and can be contacted. Unfortunately some of these doctrines have been adopted by the many of the Protestant Churches.

You are applying it to the wrong thing.

Claudia

[ May 03, 2006, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

[Eliyahu]

As for the dietary matters, I am tolerating either side according to Romans 14.
I think DHK referred that issue mainly to the case of Compulsory Celibacy or Paganic practices.
I have some Messianic Jewish friends and they still follow Lev 11 dietary practices. I know some SDA believer and doctor, and he studied the effects of the diet according to the Leviticus teachings. The Conclusion is that the teachings of such diet is very much helpful for the health.
Fat and Blood are bad, and Crab, Lobsters, Cuttlefish, shrimps are bad and contain extremely high cholesterol.

So, I hope those are to be left to individual or might be treated as less grievous matter of sins according to Romans 14.

 

[Jacob Dahlen]

To the people who do not believe Scripture is Words of God ! If anyone ignore Words of God, that person is ignoring God!

Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Although there is no agreed-upon technical definition among Protestants, it generally meant that Scripture, as interpreted by the individual believer, is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals. The intention of the Reformation was to "correct" the Roman Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible. This is in contrast to Prima scriptura, which holds that the Bible is the primary source of doctrine, but that understanding can be improved by reference to other sources.

 

[Jacob Dahlen]

Biblical references used against the sola scriptura:
2 Thessalonians 2:15; Corinthians 11:2; 1 Timothy 3:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; John 21:25; John 20:30; 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 17:28-29; James 4:5; Acts 20:35; Ephesians 5:14; Hebrews 11:37; Matthew 2:23; Luke 10:16;Mark 16:15; Mark 3:14; Luke 24:47; Acts 15:27; Colossians 1:5;

 

[Jacob Dahlen]

The Bible and Holy Tradition

In the writings of the early Christian fathers, there are numerous "canons" of scripture, however it began to take final form somewhere around the time of the 3rd council. To trace the development of the canon of the New Testament, you would have to follow the trail through a number of local councils, etc. I think that there is a booklet available from St John of Kronstadt Press which contains a summary of the development of the Scriptures, but I am not at home with my library and so I'll have to ask for a "recess" until I can look it up and give you title and summary.

I often use metaphore and parable when preaching, and I'd like to share a brief version of one with you that addresses just this issue. Picture a beautiful jeweled pendant. The centerpiece is a brilliant flawless diamond and it is set in pure radiant gold, intricately worked and designed to set off the diamond in its greatest beauty. Surrounding the diamond are carefully chosen stones, lesser gems, but no less flawless and beautiful, rubies, emeralds, saphires, pearls, etc. These are chosen and arranged to compliment and augment the brilliance of the diamond and in no way detract from the diamond's beauty, but rather everything together presents a beautiful whole.

The pendant is the whole of Holy Tradition, which is the expression of the revelation of Christ in the Church. The central diamond is the Holy Scripture and the surrounding gems and gold are the lives of the saints, the writings of the fathers, the services and traditions of the Church. Now if someone were to see this pendant who did not like pearls, he might think to himself, "if only we took off the pearls, this would be much better" and if he did so we would still have a beautiful pendant but somehow lessened. Then perhaps portions of the pendant are allowed to become tarnished so that they no longer reveal their beauty and instead of cleaning off the tarnish and restoring the gems, those portions are removed - perhaps even replaced by rhinestones. Then along comes someone else who doesn't like emeralds and removes all the emeralds. And again along comes someone else who removes the remaining saphires etc. Finally someone views this once beautiful pendant and not having seen its former beauty thinks that it is an ugly thing but the diamond is beautiful and so removes the diamond and trashes the rest. The diamond is still beautiful, brilliant and valuable. It is set apart and displayed by itself - a truly beautiful thing, rescued from an ugly setting. But only those who never saw the original setting could say that for the diamond, when removed from the pendant is somehow lessened and there is no longer the goldwork and the other gems to set it off and make it a part of a greater whole. This is what has happened to the Holy Scriptures in the protestant Church. Slowly, gradually all of Holy Tradition has been stripped away either because someone didn't like this or that piece or perhaps the true beauty of a portion was tarnished and it was tossed away without knowing its true value or perhaps a cheap substitute attempting to replace that which was lost was done away with etc. until all that remains of the Tradition of the Church is the Bible. And so they have it - a beautiful gem of the Church but out of context, out of place and its true beauty, revealed by the setting, is lost and in fact the horror stories of the distorted condition of that setting have led to the opinion that this gem is better off without and any attempts to place it back in context are resisted, in some cases violently.

I hope this little story helps to provide some understanding of how the Holy Scripture is a part (a beautiful, brilliant, central part) of Holy Tradition and to remove it from the context of Tradition is to lessen it and hide its true beauty.

Fr David Moser <MOSERD@DELPHI.COM>
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/scripture/pendant.html

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Jacob Dahlen:
Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

You are parroting the story of some Catholic without doing your own homework. Your statement is blatantly wrong and accusatory. The facts of history are thus:
The reformers themselves did not actually believe in sola scriptura in that they (including Luther) went back to the ECF to check their findings. They wanted to make sure that whateve coclusion they came to in the Bible was in accordance with the ECF, not necessarily the Bible. That is not ECF. Don't believe everything you hear from the Catholic Church.

Secondly it was the ECF that did believe in sola scriptura, as they did go back to the Scriptures to verify their conclusions, just as the Bereans did.
DHK

 

[D28guy]

Jacob Dahlen,

"Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century."

The priciple that we now call "sola scriptura" was thundered forth from Almighty God Himself in both the Old and New testaments of His scriptures. It is a Divine truth that is much much much older than the 16th century.

Mike

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Jacob Dahlen:
Although there is no agreed-upon technical definition among Protestants, it generally meant that Scripture, as interpreted by the individual believer, is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals. [/QB]

No, Scripture itself has the Sovereign Authority by itself, regardless it is interpretted by individual or by a church.

How do you resolve if your tradition is found to be contradicting Scripture?

How do you accept Idol Worship?

What you mentioned as Bible references are wrong as they don't mention that Tradition can supersede Scripture!

 

[Matt Black]

And how do you resolve it if two interpretations of Scripture contradict each other?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
And how do you resolve it if two interpretations of Scripture contradict each other?

If we refer to another verses, they can be cleared. Scripture is not useless but has the power to teach us and help us discern as we read 2 Tim 3:15-16

 

[Matt Black]

And if the other party refers to another verse and still arrives at a different interpretation, what then? Who mediates between the two interpretations?

 

[Eliyahu]

Bible interpretation is not that difficult and will show clearly which is correct.
However, if the parties don't agree each other, there will be no solution until He comes. Therefore they should be left unresolved or disagreed. In that case we have to agree to disagree each other.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Bible interpretation is not that difficult and will show clearly which is correct.

This is why there are so many Christian sects correct?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by nate:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Bible interpretation is not that difficult and will show clearly which is correct.

This is why there are so many Christian sects correct? </font>[/QUOTE]No it isn't.
1. There are those churches that are clearly evangelical. The differences among them are fairly minor. D28GUY, for example, has some widely divergent views than me. But I know by his posts that he is an evangelical, he is saved and has a heart for the things of God. I would love to meet him and have fellowship with him on a personal level. We are both evangelicals. We both believe in sola scriptura. We both believe in the fundamentals of the faith.

2. There are those churches that have another authority other than the Bible. This includes the RCC which puts Oral Tradition and ECF just as important as the Bible. It fits in with all the cults who have their various leaders as authorities rather than the Bible. They all have their "own private interpretation." This is where you get the most divergent views. This why the RCC is different from the J.W.'s and the Mormons, and so on. It is the "private interpretation" of these organizations that have set them apart from orthodox Christianity and made them cults.

3. The third group includes many mainline churches. It is those churches that have gone liberal and now deny the fundamentals of the faith--the deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming, the Atonement, the Trinity. the inspiration of the Bible.
These are some of our most basic doctrines. When churches begin to deny these doctrines they no longer believe in the Bible or in Christ. In this group I would also include the "homosexual churches" which are in outright disobedience to God.

When you have this kind of break down, you find that the churches in the last two groups have created division because of sin or sinful attitudes.
But the churches in the first group may have different names but are united more than divided. There is more unity in evangelicalism than there is division. There is more division within the Catholic Church body than there is within all of evangelicalism.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by DHK:
No, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not the Bible is in and of itself our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It is our "sole" appeal for authority, or final authority. The Catholic Church says "Absolutely not!" We have Oral Tradition.

This is a good point. man-made tradition DRAWS sinful man away from the standard of truth - which is "God's Word".

No institution illustrates that flaw more perfectly than the RCC.

However to Matt's credit he will claim that OTHERS also fall into that same trap of clinging to man-made traditions.

And that is correct as well. The sinful human nature seeks to exault man's tradition above the Word of God.

Christ pointed that out with the ONE TRUE CHURCH of His day in Mark 7:1-11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK

They even go farther and say that Oral Tradition interprets the infallible inspired Word of God.
It is tradition that is fallible.
It is the Word of God that is infallible.
Some people have things backwards.
DHK

Good point -- it is a "slippery slope" once man-made-tradition is accepted as the substitute for the Word of God - as the JUDGE of the Word of God!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

 

[nate]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Good point -- it is a "slippery slope" once man-made-tradition is accepted as the substitute for the Word of God - as the JUDGE of the Word of God!

I'm suggesting we interpet Scripture according to how the Church has interpeted it. I'm Certainly not advocating their word above the Bible that is rubbish.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by DHK:
3. The third group includes many mainline churches. It is those churches that have gone liberal and now deny the fundamentals of the faith--the deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming, the Atonement, the Trinity. the inspiration of the Bible.
These are some of our most basic doctrines. When churches begin to deny these doctrines they no longer believe in the Bible or in Christ. In this group I would also include the "homosexual churches" which are in outright disobedience to God.

We at least definetly agree on this one.