The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

[Bro. James]

A tree will not die by cutting out the top--the root must be destroyed.

The "root" is the meaning of Mt. 16:18. If Peter be "pope", all outside the "holy see" are apostate. If there is no pope, there is no "holy see."

Beware, all dead trees have not fallen.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Living4Him]

we must assume that this person is perfect and infallible himself.

That's not true.

Do you believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God? How do you know?

Didn't God use fallible men to convey His infallible Word?

What about your current Bible translation? God would have had to use fallible men to translation the Bible infallibly into the language you are using. If not, then you can not say that your translation is the infallible Word of God.

What about the books contained in the Bible? Why are the books the Gospel According to Thomas, Acts of Peter, or many others not in the Bible? Didn't God use fallible men to determine in a Church Council which books are the inspired Word of God?


The above examples show what is meant by infallible in the Catholic sense. It means that the human is fallible but they were guided by the Holy Spirit. GOD prevented them from writing error. GOD is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

That means when the Pope is teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals, God will prevent him from teaching in error.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by KeeperOfMyHome:
If we leave the interpretation of God's word up to some human authority, we must assume that this person is perfect and infallible himself. How can that be when there is none righteous, no not one?

Julia

That is correct. And remember even the RCC could find no way to force people to submit against their convictions without doing the following;

#1. Placing the Bible on the prophibited reading list.

#2. Declaring some ONE figure to speak infallibly on doctrinal statements and getting all to accept AT LEAST that one point.

#3. Using a sword as needed to keep the number of opponents to a workable/containable/manageable number.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Living4Him]

Bob,

That is correct. And remember even the RCC could find no way to force people to submit against their convictions without doing the following;

#1. Placing the Bible on the prophibited reading list.

#2. Declaring some ONE figure to speak infallibly on doctrinal statements and getting all to accept AT LEAST that one point.

#3. Using a sword as needed to keep the number of opponents to a workable/containable/manageable number.

This really gets old.

While we are pointing fingers at the past, lets not forget to mention:

1. Early American Settlers - forcing everyone to believe in God and following their religion. Don't overlook their cruel and unusual punishments for those who broke their laws.

2. Let's not overlook the fact that Catholicism was outlawed in early America.

3. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay were determined to exclude alien elements from their spiritual community, and they hanged four Quakers to prove it.

4.Virginians at about the same time expelled from their Anglican province every Puritan they could lay hands on.

5.New Netherland governor Peter Stuyvesant cleansed his colony of Lutherans and Quakers, and tried to do the same to Jews.

 

[Living4Him]

No sooner had the early American colonists stepped on to the shores of this great land, than they forced their fellow immigrants to conform to their religious dogmas. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote, "The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions." Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, in Reynolds v. U.S., 145.

Many of the punishments against religious dissenters were very severe. For example, the Virginia Colony in 1610 had among its religious enactments, section 3, which declared: "That no man blaspheme God's holy name upon pain of death, or use unlawful oaths, taking the name of God in vain, curse, or ban [invoke evil], upon pain of severe punishment for the first offence so committed, and for the second, to have a bodkin [dagger] thrust through his tongue, and if he continue the blasphemy of God's holy name, for the third time so offending, he shall be brought to martial court, and there receive censure of death for his offence." Tracts Relating to the Colonies in North America (Washington, 1844), vol. 3, no. 2, p. 10.

The first Sunday law in America was the Virginia Sunday law of 1610, which read: "Every man and woman shall repair [go habitually] in the morning to the divine service and sermons preached upon the Sabbath day, and in the afternoon to divine service, and catechizing [teaching the principles of Christian dogma and ethics], upon pain for the first fault to lose their provision and the allowance for the whole week following; for the second, to lose the said allowance and also be whipt; and for the third to suffer death." G. Edward Reid, Sunday's Coming, 77.

In 1671 the Plymouth Colony passed a Sunday law in which death was the fate for dissenters. In 1646 the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law compelling the people to attend church on Sunday, and invoked the death penalty for those who denied the inspiration of the Bible. In 1723 Maryland enacted laws imposing fines upon those who violated the Sunday laws. In 1739 Delaware put Sunday violators in the stocks for four hours. See American State Papers, 17-77.

 

[Bro. James]

Kind of like "holy roman empire" in reverse.

True Christians have never forced their beliefs on anyone. We would not have freedom of conscience in this country were it not for True Christians.

The world follows that which is pseudo--including false religion.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Cavsfan2005]

I'm new here and have just finished reading the posting rules for this board. Why is it that the staunch Baptists and moderators can use "colorful" adjectives to describe things they don't agree with then?

Secondly, in reference to not having graven images etc., how do the vast majority of Protestants (including Baptists) explain away the crosses hanging outside the churches and in the sanctuaries? And stained glass windows if you want to get REALLY picky...

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Perhaps, he has a point there.

Hello, Cavsfan and welcome to the Baptist Board.

Also, I want to personally say thank you for your service in the United States Military.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Cavsfan2005]

Amen! That is exactly what I was thinking. If we leave the interpretation of God's word up to some human authority, we must assume that this person is perfect and infallible himself. How can that be when there is none righteous, no not one?

Personal interpretation is still giving it up to human authority. It just happens to be that the authority in this situation is whoever happens to be reading the Bible at the time. I really think it's a pride thing. What's wrong with a college of learned theological experts stating there interpretation of Scripture and expecting it to carry a lot of weight? We actually EXPECT this from others in our society. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc. We rely on their OPINIONS based on their experience to run our lives and survive. Why is it so touchy and bad when it comes to religion? Are we really that "humble" and "meek"?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Cavsfan2005:
Personal interpretation is still giving it up to human authority. It just happens to be that the authority in this situation is whoever happens to be reading the Bible at the time. I really think it's a pride thing. What's wrong with a college of learned theological experts stating there interpretation of Scripture and expecting it to carry a lot of weight? We actually EXPECT this from others in our society. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc. We rely on their OPINIONS based on their experience to run our lives and survive. Why is it so touchy and bad when it comes to religion? Are we really that "humble" and "meek"?

What's wrong with it? It is wrong. It is an abrogation of your responsibility to study the Word of God. You are indirectly admitting that you are too lazy to study the Bible yourself and thus you want someone else to do it for you.

Paul said for YOU to "Study to show yourselves approved unto God, workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Tim.2:15)

Jesus said: ((You)) Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39)

Jesus also said: Yedo err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.

The onus is on you, not the magesterium, not any teaching authority, not on any certain body of scholars, but on you personally to study the Word of God. The Biblical example is given in Acts 17:11
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--No magesterium here. No kind of teaching authority at all. Paul commended them and called them noble for they each searched the Scriptures daily to see whether or not what he had to say was Biblical or not. That is our obligation as well. It is called sola scriptura, and is a well established principle in the bible.

To say that it isn't is simpy to admit one's laziness in not wanting to study the Bible, and their preference in someone else to do it for them. Jesus condemns this attitude of slothfulness.
DHK

 

[Cavsfan2005]

Lazy I am not. In fact, I teach a Bible class. So please refrain from "knowing" me until I've directed more than a handful of posts in your direction, please.

Secondly, the ones of which Paul was speaking of in Thessalonica were the church leaders, rabbis, etc. But that's jsut my interpretation of it. See where that leads us?

But can you prove me otherwise in reference to Acts 17:11?

 

[DHK]

Acts 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Why did they believe? They believed because they studied the things that Paul preached and saw that they were true.
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
Who believed? It doesn't say anything about rabbis and church leaders. It says honorable women which were Greeks, and of men not a few. None of these are mentioned to be "church leaders." There was no church when Paul went there. Paul was a pioneer missionary. He went to places where others had not gone. It tells us in Romans that he would not build upon another's foundation. There was no church in Berea, and thus no church leader. Most of the ones that beleived were Greeks, not Jews. They, however, were devout Greeks which had access to the outer court of the synagogue and had some knowledge of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the LXX or Septuagint. They studied to see whether these things were so. We must go by what the Bible says, and not read anything more into it than what it says.

Again, I stress to you, that our personal obligation to study the Bible, so emphasized over and over again in Scripture is proof enough of sola scriptura, and negates the very thought of any magesterium or teaching authority. The onus is on each individual to study the Scriptures for themselves.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, all can - indeed must - read and study the Bible, but some are more qualified to interpret it than others. I think that Baptist Churches do adhere to this principle - all of us are encouraged to read the Bible but you wouldn't let any old Tom Dick or Harry into your pulpit, would you?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

"As I dialogue with other evangelical Christians, the more I become convinced that sola Scriptura is a nonsense and that there is a need for a single church teaching authority to interpret the Bible."

1st of all, God told us in advance to expect differences regarding non foundational teachings.(Romans 14 and others) It amazes me when people come along who are frustrated and looking for other options regarding something God told us in advance to expect.

Secondly, if you reject Gods truth regarding "sola scriptura", and opt for some inferior system of hierarchial "truth dispensers" for the masses, where are you going to turn?

The Jehovahs Witnesses?

Jim Jones?

The Catholic Church?

David Koresh?

The Eastern Orthodox?

All of those groups forbid their people to think for themselves with the Holy Spirits help...and what do we find? Heresy and error that is beyond comprehension.

Have you ever heard the old phrase "The proof of the pudding is in the eating"?

If you compare...and grade out...evangelicalism(with sola scriptura) against groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Catholic Church, the Mormons, and the Eastern Orthodox on a 1-10 grade scale regarding error, evangelicalism will grade out at maybe a "3" or so, while the others grade out at around "25" or so!

Its a no brainer. Good grief man, grab hold of yourself and come to your senses!

You would consider an overflow of heresy and error over simple disagreements over non-foundational issues?

This is not rocket science here. There is nothing in existance that is even close to Gods divinely appointed system of things. All man made counterfiets are a pathetic 2nd, 3rd, or 4th option.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Bro. James]

"Crosses hanging..."

We have no such things--in our public or private worship. We hold such things to be graven--pagan--forbidden by the True and Living God. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of The Living God."

"God is a Spirit. They that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth"

We preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified--without visual distractions.

We do have a new piano--not readily apparent.

We be called "Sovereign Grace, Landmark, Missionary Baptists. Our faith and practice has been out there since Jesus walked the shores of Galilee--calling His sheep--building His assembly--the one which Hell has assailed--but over which Satan has not prevailed. Many of us have been through the fires and floods of persecution--all have been through The Blood of Jesus--which is sprinkled on the Mercy Seat before the throne of God. We do not "drink" the Blood, but marvel at the Grace of God each day He allows us.

Praise His Holy Name.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Living4Him]

They believed because they studied the things that Paul preached and saw that they were true.

What did they study, please elaborate.

 

[Matt Black]

My replies in non-bold:-

Originally posted by D28guy:
1st of all, God told us in advance to expect differences regarding non foundational teachings.(Romans 14 and others) It amazes me when people come along who are frustrated and looking for other options regarding something God told us in advance to expect.

These are not necessarily non-foundational. EG: is salvation sola fide as in the Reformation traditions or is there a more sacramental economy of salvation to be discerned, pace John 6:51-63, as interpreted by John's disciple and successor Ignatius of Antioch? Soteriology is pretty foundational, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, if you reject Gods truth regarding "sola scriptura",

And how do you know this is God's truth? Where in Scripture is the doctrine of sola Scriptura laid out (and I Tim 3:16 won't do; there is no sola to be found there!)?


If you compare...and grade out...evangelicalism(with sola scriptura) against groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Catholic Church, the Mormons, and the Eastern Orthodox on a 1-10 grade scale regarding error, evangelicalism will grade out at maybe a "3" or so, while the others grade out at around "25" or so!

On what scale? On whose scale? Who of us is qualified to pass judgment in this way? The OP has I believe demonstrated that those who adhere to SS are certainly not so qualified - they can't even agree how to correctly judge other SS adherents!

You would consider an overflow of heresy and error over simple disagreements over non-foundational issues?

Like I said, these are not just non-foundational points we are discussing here

This is not rocket science here. There is nothing in existance that is even close to Gods divinely appointed system of things. All man made counterfiets are a pathetic 2nd, 3rd, or 4th option.

And how do you know that SS itself is not a man-made counterfeit? It's not in the Bible, which makes it a man-made doctrine. It was unknown by and large in Church history prior to the Reformation, so it's a fairly recent innovation. Adherence to it means you have to chuck out core Christian doctrines and decisions made by Church Councils, such as the Trinity, orthodox Christology and indeed the canon of the New Testament itself. Smells pretty counterfeit to me...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Eric B]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Church was well on its way into a slide into total apostasy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, are you saying that the Church doesn't profess the Christian faith?

EricB, what then does your accusation of apostasy mean for Christians living from, say, 300AD to 1517, and what does it make of Jesus' claim in Matt 16:18 (ignoring the Petrine reference) that the gates of hades will not prevail against His Church? If you are correct, should He not rather have said "the gates of Hades will not prevail against it - oh, except for 1400 or so of its first 1500 years when it will go spectacularly cockeyed in doctrine and practice"? Bit of an oversight on the Lord's part, eh?

Well, what you you mean "the Church"? There were differences, changes, and small groups who spoke out (Waldensians, etc) even during that period. Even you (Matt) admit "I am not advocating that authority being concentrated in one man's hands; the Church up to at least the 8th century functioned perfectly adequately on matters of dogma by conciliar rather than papal methods". Yet after the 8th century; the power did come to be concentrated in one man's hands. Was that still "the Church"? It was just as I said; the large visible Church was in a rapid slide into error; and even most of you "catholists" here do not accept everything that the RCC; EOC or any of the others have become; so just what is this "one Church authority" you keep pitching at us? Just ignore the errors of the RCC (which you do not even agree with) because of its "seniority" (most ancient organization)?
No; "the Church" MUST be an invisible spiritual body of those who believe the foundational truths of the Gospel. Not an organization that itself changes over time. As for differences; as you said: "Christians had to agree to get along in those days." So thus we do in the present as well.

There was none of this "let's all do our own thing and pretend we've got it right", "one man and his Bible" approach that characterises SS; ...there was consensus and it is that for which I yearn.

No; you just had a huge powerful organization which "did its own thing", and that to me was more dangerous! As far as "truth"; what difference does it make whether there was one man or one group? With one group; you just had an appearance of "unity", but this unity was not in truth, and it kept changing over time anyway.
Meanwhile; orthodox Christianity today does believe in a core of essential doctrines, despite the lesser doctrines and multitude of organizations built around them. So it is not quite "every man and his Bible do their own thing".

And how do you know that SS itself is not a man-made counterfeit? It's not in the Bible, which makes it a man-made doctrine. It was unknown by and large in Church history prior to the Reformation, so it's a fairly recent innovation. Adherence to it means you have to chuck out core Christian doctrines and decisions made by Church Councils, such as the Trinity, orthodox Christology and indeed the canon of the New Testament itself. Smells pretty counterfeit to me...

Maybe, just like those doctrines you mentioned; God inspired the realization of SS through men in spite of themselves; due to errors arising in the Church just like the ones that necessitated the forulation of the Trinity, Christology, and the Canon; which otherwise were not laid down in scriptures as precise formulas. Nobody is really questioning this means of determining truth as much as they are questioning certain specific doctrines that are claimed based on it. Even when using this means of arriving at truth; the Scriptures are the final authority, and what is arrived at must conform to a reasonable reading of them. The basis of the Trinity and Christology were scriptural arguments, after all. Those men did not just conjure them up out of nowhere (or some hidden "oral tradition") and say "this is truth because we say so". It's only some of the formulation they devised. But if the Arians had won; then you would be arguing the same for Arianism. But would that make it true? So we cannot just take any teaching men may have come up and read it into the Bible based on conciliar or any other human authority.

 

[Matt Black]

But the difference is that the Arians did not win out, thanks to the providence of the Holy Spirit acting through the Church. That's the difference - sola Scriptura was not articulated by a Church Council but (initially at least) by one man: Luther. What right or authority did he have for this?

How do you define what is 'orthodox Christianity' and the 'core of essential doctrines' and who are you or I to do this?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

And how do you know that SS itself is not a man-made counterfeit? It's not in the Bible, which makes it a man-made doctrine.

In Acts 17:11 what is the "rule" or standard that Paul is being held to "IN scripture"??

In Isaiah 8:20 what is the "rule or standard" by which all are to be judged "according to scripture".

In 2 Tim 3:16 what is the "rule or standard" that is to be used for "doctrine, for instruction, for correction ... so THAT the saint of God may be adequately equipped"??

If this is really not in scripture - what is it?

In Christ,

Bob