Sola Scripture?

Get out the Book of Acts. Study it carefully. Look for a faith and practice in the early assemblies. Compare that to what is practiced in 2006.

Next, I Cor., then, Ephesians. These were all New Testament Assemblies. The Corinthians allowed themselves to get corrupted--they did not practice assembly discipline. Ephesians Ch. 2 is a clear example of scriptural salvation.

The biggest problem with scripture understanding is the unregenerated trying to follow the commands of the unregenerated--which always winds up in the confusion of the commandments of men--some sort of salvation by works. It never fits the Word of God. See John 3:5 plus context.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I'd be interested to see what others have to say about that problem... </font>[/QUOTE]….. or… (eg you are offering a false dilemma) the Bible tells us that there will always be tares in with the wheat,
Mat 13:24-30 esv He put another parable before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,
(25) but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
(26) So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
(27) And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?
(28) He said to them, An enemy has done this. So the servants said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them?
(29) But he said, No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
(30) Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

……. and that there will be disagreements even among true Christians,
1Co 11:18-19 esv For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,
(19) for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

and that these Christians may go their own ways/seperate in some respects, but still be brothers and sisters in Christ……
Act 15:36-41 esv And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.
(37) Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark.
(38) But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.
(39) And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,
(40) but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.
(41) And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.


Of course… this is not God’s ultimate will, which is unity, but it is also the case that it is God’s will that Christians sin no more, to be holy as He is holy, to walk as Jesus did, etc. The point being that there are some goals that are unreachable for now, one of them is church unity and a single authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures It just won’t happen.

Roman Catholics boast time and time again of their ecclesiastical hierarchy, yet there is rampant dissension among Roman Catholics about all sorts of important doctrines, the Traditionalists versus everyone else, those pushing for women priests, married priests, abortion, liberals, conservatives etc etc…. thus rendering their criticism of Protestant denominationalism inane and hypocritical. The fact is, unless you have totalitarian type of hierarchies, like the JW’s where no dissension whatsoever is permitted, which is itself unbiblical (see Romans 14) you are bound to have serious differences of opinion among good godly people, and the answers to their disagreements may not be possible.

Blessings,
Ken

 

Except that there is no false dilemma - how for example are we to tell which groups are 'genuine', to use Paul's words? Who gets to decide who's who, and why?

 

I believe that scripture is indeed the final authority, but we would be remiss to ignore history and the doctrines of the early churches.

The Church of England has maintained the historical values of scriptural interpretation in its creeds, the Book of Common Prayer and the many books written by great Anglicans down through the ages. In the end, I must be convinced in my own mind that wot I am reading is correct and trust God that it is so. IN so doing, I must be open to the thoughts of others of all stripes, and never draw a curtain across my mind, lest I miss wot God is saying to me.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Exactly. Also, all the warnings against false teachers and about observing sound doctrine imply the ability for those early Christians to recognize what was true teaching and sound doctrine and what wasn't (even before the NT was completely compiled and canonized). It was never a case of "well you're free to hold to this or that contrary opinion regarding the nature of God, Christ, and salvtion--we'll agree to disagree." There has always been a fundamental distinction about the importance holding correct views about God, Christ, and salvation on one hand, and disagreeing with other believers about such things as whether or not to eat meat or drink wine on the other.

 

Indeed. The whole point of establishing an episcopate - which I believe Christ did in appointing the Apostles and to which Paul alludes heavily in the Pastoral Letters - was to vest doctrinal authority in a bunch of guys who could trace their appointment back to Jesus. That historic episcopate (NB: not the Pope or the 'Holy see', so let's kill off that red herring/ strawman) remains the interpreting authority

 

But the word as interpreted by whom?

 

But the Bible as interpreted by whom? The individual? What if an individual, despite his sincere belief to the contrary, is in fact misinterpreting the Scripture, especially when that one may be espousing a doctrine never taught before in the history of the Church? What then--has everybody else got it wrong until that individual? If not, how does one go about correcting this individual without falling into subjectivism if it's only "my-Bible-and-me"?

But if your pastor sincerely believes he is preaching the WHOLE truth of God's word, and you sincerely believe otherwise, how does a third party objectively decide who is right without adding a another subjective opinion to the mix? He may agree with one or the other or conclude you are both wrong and propound what it really means? Who is right?

For instance, Calvinists believe they are interpreting Scripture correctly and are thus teaching the WHOLE truth of God's word, and Arminians believe they are interpreting Scripture correctly and are thus teaching the WHOLE truth of God's word. Yet they adhere to diametrically opposed systems. So if I come along and say: "From studying the WHOLE truth of God's word, I've decided the Arminians are right and the Calvinists are wrong", would that be acceptable? If not why, especially if that's what through careful and prayerful study I discern the Bible to be actually teaching? (And if you say my discernment is still wrong, on what objective basis would you make this claim other than it disagrees with your own subjective interpretation of Scripture?)

So, again, how is it exactly that Sola Scriptura is supposed to work without collapsing into subjectivism and relativism?

 

Matt, you beat me to it.

 

Which Episcopate do you mean by Historic Episcopate?
Do you think the Inquisitors are the Historic Episcopate ?

When you ask me about the same question without limiting to Roman Catholic, I meant no human Tradition of any church can nullify the Words of God when it contradicts Words of God.

Which is the Word of God may become a question in terms of Canonization and Authenticity. In that case Holy Spirit help us discern what is True Words of God. This applies not only to RC but also to Eastern church or Indian Thomas church or to Armenian church as well.
Let's think about Idolatry. Holy Spirit convicts us that it is wrong. Even though there may be many excuses about it, Old Testament convicts it is sin, New Testament emphasized us that we should quit from it. If there is any Tradition of Idolatry, it is wrong and sinful, whatever excuses there may be. God never changed His position about it. Gospel John 16:13 tells us that Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, 1 John 2:27 tells that the same Anointing teach us all things.

Let's think about the Compulsory Celibacy of Roman Catholic.
It was not confirmed until 1070-1170 AD. As you may know, many priests married and they had many children, then there arose the problem with the inheritance of the church properties. Many of Popes married before Pope Alexander III. You may know the famous Pope Alexander 6 who died of VD. He had many wives and concubines, and of course hired many prostitutes.
Even the so-called first Pope, Peter was married and Jesus healed his wife's mother (Matt 8:14).

In other words, throughout the history, Compulsory Celibacy was not sustained for a long time. In that case we find again Bible teaches this way:
Episcope( Bishop) must be a husband of one wife ( 1 Tim 3:2). In other words, Married men can become the Bishops as long as they have only one wife. However, is it allowed in Roman Catholic Churches? Can the churches impose any further Prohibition which God never instructed?
In such case, what are the criteria to decide which is right and which is wrong?

Again we return back to the Guidance by Holy Spirit and then Words of God which means Bible Scripture. What if human assertions or Tradition contradict Scripture? Is the Scripture insufficient to teach us? Read 2 Tim 3:15-16, Then Deut 28-31.

 

"But be not ye called rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

The great error of the Romish Church is found in the fact that the Bible is interpreted in the light of the opinions of the "fathers." Their opinions are regarded as infallible, and the dignitaries of the church assume that it is their prerogative to make others believe as they do, and to use force to compel the conscience. Those who do not agree with them are pronounced heretics.

The Church fathers all say something different and change their minds. How can you rely on them then?

David said, "I have more understanding than all my teachers: for Thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Thy precepts." Ps. 119:99, 100


Jn:16:13: Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide YOU into all truth

Mt:11:25: At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

 

But the Bible as interpreted by whom? The group? What if a certain specific group, despite it’s sincere belief to the contrary, is in fact misinterpreting the Scripture, especially when that one may be espousing a doctrine never taught before in the history of the Church? What then— have all the other groups got it wrong until that group came along? If not, how does one go about correcting this group without falling into totalitarianism, if it's only "my-group-and-me"?

In the end, there is no escape from the individual's task to be convinced in their own mind... even if you were to place yourself in subjection to a certain body of supposedly (infallible?) authoritative interpreters, you would still have to have made the individual decision to accept this or that interpretation as the only one possible.

Typically, this absolute subjection has ended in persons not being able to, in good conscience, accept some interpretations... for instance the church was awash in allegorical interpretation for a very long time, this approach has been largely abandoned… now what do we think of all those who mindlessly subjected themselves to their interpretations… where is the individual responsibility for what you believe? Jesus said that we will all stand before God individually for what we believe and for what we do.

btw, no one seems to have really addressed Jarthur's excellent post regarding the nature of tradition. I am fairly certain that he has gotten his ideas from an excellent book on the subject by Keith Mathison called "The Shape of Sola Scriptura". It's a facinating account historically speaking, and shows that the Roman church itself was Sola Scriptura for a long period of time. It was not until a group of monks wanted their teachings to be forever unchangable did the church "harden" itself and elevate tradition to the level of Scripture in matters of faith and practice.

Anyway, if you want to answer the question of how to determine who is right, here is Clement of Alexandria's (150-215) advice:

"CHAPTER XVI -- SCRIPTURE THE CRITERION BY WHICH TRUTH AND HERESY ARE DISTINGUISHED.

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves."

And again
"For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in divers manners and at sundry times," leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.

For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is not enough merely to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration; in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers; while those who, having advanced further, and become correct expounders of the truth, are Gnostics. Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration." (Stromata)

sounds like sola scriptura to me....


blessings,
Ken

 

Which Episcopate do you mean by Historic Episcopate?
Do you think the Inquisitors are the Historic Episcopate ?[/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]The historic episcopate of the Undivided Church up to 1054 at the very least. So your question about the Inquisition is a strawman

And you would be correct. But we are not talking about human tradition, but rather the teaching authority which Christ entrusted to His Apostles

But that then poses the dilemma put up earlier by Doubting Thomas. How do you deal with that?

A matter not taught by the entire historic episcopate but just unilaterally by the Catholics after 1054. Even they acknowledge that this is not a matter of doctrine but just of church discipline and can be changed at any time

 

Really? I've found that despite some minor disagreements here and there, there is a remarkable consistency and unity among the Fathers across time and space on the key issues regarding God, Christ, and salvation.

"You" is collective and refers to the apostles and the Church they founded.

But what happens when the "babes" (or the "wise and prudent" for that matter) all claim to be guided by the Spirit into all truth yet come to contradictory conclusions on key aspects of Biblical interpretation?

 

Simple...The group (or groups) that has consistently maintained the Apostolic Tradition from the beginning. The group that "came along" with the Apostles.

But one can investigate historically and see which group or groups have maintained the consistent interpretations and teachings, through time and space, of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. One can also see when in history a novel scriptural doctrine or interpretation arrived on the scene and how it differed from the historical interpretation and teaching of the undivided church, and how the church reacted to that new teaching.

Yeah, I read that book a couple times about three years ago. His distinction among "solo" and "sola" Scriptura was somewhat artificial, as was the hard and fast distinctions he tried to make between Tradition 1, Tradition 2 and Tradition 3. But oh well--it was a decent attempt to salvage "sola Scriptura"; the attempt just fell short. However, I do recommend folks reading it to see for themselves, because I think his book is the best "defense" of Sola Scriptura out there. (Perhaps not counting Webster's three volume series which is pretty long, but equally unconvincing. Ironically, before I read either Webster or Mathison I was a believer in sola Scriptura.)

Yes I suppose one can proof-text the Fathers to ostensibly give historical support for "Sola Scriptura" (which is what William Webster's three volume set attempts to do)--if one ignores the other things these same fathers said about the importance of Church tradition and authority. Taking these fathers comments in context, they indeed teach "Prima Scriptura"--just not "sola Scriptura".

 

Consider the story of Paul in Berea, Acts 17:10-12. Paul preached there in the synagogue and many Jews responded to his preaching with eagerness. We are told that after they listened to Paul each day they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. How did Paul react? Did he say that the Scriptures were not clear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin could tell them what the Scriptures really meant? Or did he say that they should not expect to find the truth in the Scriptures because they were incomplete and needed to be supplemented by tradition? Or did he say that they were insulting his apostolic authority, and that they should simply submit to him as the infallible interpreter of the Bible? Or did Paul say that they should defer to Peter as the only one who could interpret the Bible? No! He did not say any of these things. The practice of the Bereans is praised in the Bible. They are called noble because they evaluated everything on the basis of the written Word of God.