The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

[BobRyan]

2 Timothy 1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus,
2 To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
3 I thank God, whom I serve with a clear conscience the way my forefathers did, as I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day,

4 longing to see you, even as I recall your tears, so that I may be filled with joy.
5 For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.

2Tim 3
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.
5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

So why the need for Paul's preaching there...or the Gospel...or indeed the entire New Testament?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Eric B]

Because that was the completion of the revelation. Once again; this does not give later leaders the license to add their own ideas and practices; claiming to have the same authority as Paul. Why even say we have a closed canon, then? If your analogy is true; then the Church fathers, creeds and councils, catechisms; etc. should all be apart of the Bible!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So why the need for Paul's preaching there...or the Gospel...or indeed the entire New Testament?

#1. There is NO basis for ANY scripture having as ITS justification - "previous scripture was INSUFFICIENT for salvation".

No such argument is made in the text of the NT.

Paul never begins a letter by saying "and since all of scripture and all of my previous letters are STILL in sufficient for salvation - I am adding this letter". Neither is that the argument of any NT author.


#2. No NT evangelist EVER says "And because scripture is STILL insufficient for salvation - I am adding some oral tradition here and speaking to you something new so that finally someone can get saved".

That is never the basis for evangelism in either the NT or the OT.

#3. Paul's statement in 2Tim 3:15-17 is "STILL TRUE" - the scriptures ARE those that are sufficient to lead us to salvation!

Your question is basically - "why did God evangelize in the OT and NT if scripture is sufficient".

And the answer is "Because God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance"! 2Peter 3.

God's evangelism is NOT done because "scripture has failed".

God wills that "We have life and that more abundantly". Having the scriptures explained to us and the Gospel spelled out for us - is EVEN EASIER than finding it from the open book. But God never releases us from the Acts 17:11 obligation or the Gal 1:6-11 obligation "IF anyone comes to you preaching a DIFFERENT GOSPEL OTHER than that which has been given to you - let them be accursed"!

The only way to COMPARE what is spoken to you vs what HAS ALREADY BEEN given in scripture is to "read it" and to do what is APPROVED of in Acts 17:11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[TC]

11 pages and the bankruptcy of sola scriptura has yet to be proven. What I have seen proven though, is that some people's view of the scriptures is bankrupt. I have a very high regard for the scriptures and will believe them over some man or or some council (or central authority or whatever you want to call it). The Bereans were positivily commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if what they were being told was true and we can do no less today.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

But the point is that Jesus also interpreted the Scriptures, sometimes so radically as to at least appear to contradict them

("You have heard it said...but I say to you..."etc). His teachings on those subjects in turn formed part of the Gospels and thus part of the NT. Putting it another way, if the OT was enough, we wouldn't need the NT

#1. No NT letter was ever written with the stated purpose above. No letter ever started with "and since the letter to the Colossians is STILL insufficient - I am writting 2Thess or 3rd John".

#2. Christ was speaking before the cross and was EXPANDING (building) on the existing scripture in Matt 5 -- NOT contradicting.

Contradicting would be "The Law says you shall not Murder but I SAY murdering 2 or 3 times is ok".

BUILDING is of the ofrm "The LAW says you shall not Murder but I say NOT ONLY shall you not Murder -- you shall not even hate".

The first case is a clear contradiction - the second case merely strengthens and expands the existing Word.

As Christ said "NOT one jot of the Law shall change".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Because that was the completion of the revelation.

So the revelation of the Scripture concerned was incomplete!! Thank you. I rest my case

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by TC:
11 pages and the bankruptcy of sola scriptura has yet to be proven. What I have seen proven though, is that some people's view of the scriptures is bankrupt. I have a very high regard for the scriptures and will believe them over some man or or some council (or central authority or whatever you want to call it). The Bereans were positivily commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if what they were being told was true and we can do no less today.

Its bankruptcy has been amply demonstrated. By way of demonstration, let me ask you a question@ with whose view of Scripture do you ally yourself based on Scripture alone: the Calvinists or the Arminians, the cessationists or charismatics, the covenantists or dispensationalists, the sacramentalists or sola fide brigade, the pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, a-millenialists, secret rapture Left Behind -ers, pre-tribs, post-tribs, partial or total preterists, episcopalians, presbyterians or congregationalists, women who wear trousers (pants) or skirts, those who have women preachers or those who think women should keep their mouths shut etc etc, ad nauseam ad nauseam. Please quote chapter and verse for each of your positions and also demonstrate how your interpretation of each verse is superior to that of the opposing camp

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Its bankruptcy has been amply demonstrated. By way of demonstration, let me ask you a question@ with whose view of Scripture do you ally yourself based on Scripture alone: the Calvinists or the Arminians, the cessationists or charismatics, the covenantists or dispensationalists, the sacramentalists or sola fide brigade, the pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, a-millenialists, secret rapture Left Behind -ers, pre-tribs, post-tribs, partial or total preterists, episcopalians, presbyterians or congregationalists, women who wear trousers (pants) or skirts, those who have women preachers or those who think women should keep their mouths shut etc etc, ad nauseam ad nauseam. Please quote chapter and verse for each of your positions and also demonstrate how your interpretation of each verse is superior to that of the opposing camp

Yours in Christ

Matt

No, your bankrupt view of the scriptures has been amply demonstrated. I have great confidence that every word of the scriptures is true and correct and that it does not matter if my, or anyone elses, interpretation is wrong. A person's wrong interpretation does not change the truth of scripture.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV 1769)

 

[Eric B]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eric B:
Because that was the completion of the revelation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the revelation of the Scripture concerned was incomplete!! Thank you. I rest my case

At that point; when viewed from the perspective of the entire revelation, techcnically, 'yes'. But the apostles were there, and they were in the process of writing the books that completed the scripture. Leaders after them cannot claim to continue that; else as I said; all the church fathers, creeds, councils, catechisms, etc would have to be included as "Scripture"; but no one does that.

And the point was that they were still subject to the scriptures that had been given before; and the Bereans were able to test them by it. They had enough in them to prove the Gospel; but God inspired a further, clearer revelation after all the facts of Christ's life and ministry occurred. So they may have been "incomplete"; but not insufficient. Those are two totally different things.

 

[D28guy]

"11 pages and the bankruptcy of sola scriptura has yet to be proven. What I have seen proven though, is that some people's view of the scriptures is bankrupt. I have a very high regard for the scriptures and will believe them over some man or or some council (or central authority or whatever you want to call it). The Bereans were positivily commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if what they were being told was true and we can do no less today."

Its so very clear. But if one chooses to ignore that for some reason, the next problem is the results.

All one has to do is compare the teachings of those who employ the scriptures alone as our truth guide against those groups such as the Catholic Church who trust in the "anything goes, as long as WE decide its true" truth method.

On our side, we see *some* disagreements, but generally teaching that is sound.

In the case of the Catholic Church, they condemn our method while their method has lead to...

1: Disagreements...which they dont like to mention...just like we have.

2: In addition to that an overflow of idolatry, heresy, and falsehood that is beyond comprehension.

And finally, one need only look at some of the other groups who have precisely the same view of authority as the Catholic Church...

* Jehovahs Witnesses

* David Koresh

* Mormons

* Christian Science

* Jim Jones

Sadly,

Mike

 

[Bugman]

A person's wrong interpretation does not change the truth of scripture.

No it does not, but how can you know an infaliable truth, if your interperation of that truth is faliable? How then can you say with certanity that you are right in your interperation and another is wrong when both of you use the same infaliable truth but filtered through your faliable opinion?


Bryan
SDG

 

[BobRyan]

Its bankruptcy has been amply demonstrated. By way of demonstration, let me ask you a question@ with whose view of Scripture do you ally yourself based on Scripture alone: the Calvinists or the Arminians, the cessationists or charismatics, the covenantists or dispensationalists, the sacramentalists or sola fide brigade, the pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, a-millenialists, secret rapture Left Behind -ers, pre-tribs, post-tribs, partial or total preterists, episcopalians, presbyterians or congregationalists, women who wear trousers (pants) or skirts, those who have women preachers or those who think women should keep their mouths shut etc etc, ad nauseam ad nauseam. Please quote chapter and verse for each of your positions and also demonstrate how your interpretation of each verse is superior to that of the opposing camp

Pope- A tells all HIS followers that if they die trying to kill Pope-B then they will go to heaven.

The mobs line up - each behind their own chosen pope - and the survivor gets to tell everyone else what the right view of doctrine is!

"Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside. The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility, and election to the chair of
Peter, as we have seen, was frequently a commodity for sale or barter. The Ottonian era had led to a temporary improvement in the characters of the popes, but by the second quarter of the eleventh century standards had crumbled once more. Benedict IX (1032-48), whose election was the result of a systematic campaign of bribery by his father, the Tusculan grandee Count Alberic III, was as bad as any of the popes of the preceding 'dark century'. Like
his uncle and immediate predecessor John XIX, Benedict was a layman, and was still in his twenties at the time of his election. He was both violent and debauched, and even the Roman populace, hardened as they were to unedifying papal behaviour, could not stomach him. He was eventually deposed in favour of Silvester III (1045). With the help of his family's private army, he was briefly restored in 1045 amid bloody hand-to-hand fighting in the streets
of Rome. He was evidently tired of the struggle, however, for he accepted a bribe to abdicate in favour of his godfather, the archpriest John Gratian." - Eamon Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (Yale University Press, 1997)

"During the last two years of his pontificate, Sixtus V (1585-90) rewrote the entire Latin Bible, adding phrases and sentences at whim, leaving out entire verses, changing the titles of the Psalms, and inventing his own system of chapters and verses. In a Papal Bull Aeternus Ille (an allegedly infallible declaration on faith and morals to the entire Church), he declared by 'the fullness of Apostolical power' that this new 'translation' of the Bible
must be 'received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.' Anyone who disobeyed was to be excommunicated. Of course, when the clergy saw the pope's astonishing handiwork, which instantly had made obsolete the Council of Trent's approved Latin Bible and all textbooks based upon it, they were horrified. Fortunately, Sixtus died a few months later and a cover-up
was devised by Bellarmine....Bellarmine and a group of dedicated scholars sworn to secrecy went to work and in about six months corrected the past pope's errors. A new edition of the 'Sixtus Bible' was published as though it were merely another printing of the same, and a massive effort was made to recover the original copies of the heretical publication, which were then destroyed. As one would suspect, a few copies escaped the search and have been
preserved (one in the Bodleian Library in Oxford). These 'Bibles' constitute one more proof that popes are not infallible and that to maintain this lie the [Roman Catholic] Church is willing to tell other lies as well." - Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Harvest House, 1994)

 

[BobRyan]

Von Dollinger writes in The Pope and the Council:


the Roman Church was enslaved and degraded, while the Apostolic See [papacy] became the prey and the plaything of rival factions of the nobles, and for a long time of ambitious and profligate women. It was only renovated for a brief interval (997-1003) in the persons of Gregory V and Silvester II, by the influence of the Saxon emperor. Then the papacy sank back into utter confusion and moral impotence; the Tuscan Counts made it hereditary in their family; again and again, dissolute boys, like John XII [16 years old when he became Pope] and [Benedict IX [11 years old when he became Pope], occupied and disgraced the Apostolic throne, which was now bought and sold like a piece of merchandise, and at last three Popes fought for the tiara, until the Emperor Henry III put an end to the scandal by elevating a German bishop to the See of Rome.

Eamon Duffy writes the following about some of the "legitimate" Popes in his Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes:

Like his uncle and immediate predecessor John XIX, Benedict was a layman, and was still in his twenties at the time of his election. He was both violent and debauched, and even the Roman populace, hardened as they were to unedifying papal behaviour, could not stomach him. He was eventually deposed in favour of Silvester III (1045). With the help of his family's private army, he was briefly restored in 1045 amid bloody hand-to-hand fighting in the streets
of Rome. He was evidently tired of the struggle, however, for he accepted a bribe to abdicate in favour of his godfather, the archpriest John Gratian.

What a wonderful world - history. No wonder they call it "the Dark Ages"

Oh yes back to the point-- "And THEN the winner gets to decide what doctrine everyone should believe".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[icthus]

Matt Black, you wrote:

"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"

I really don't see how, Matt, if you are a born-again Christian, that you could consider the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" to be "a nonsense"? This just does not add up, and I do not understand how anyone who professes to follow Jesus Christ can come to such a conclusion?

Do you know what is meant by "Sola Scriptura"? This term is used to show that Scripture ALONE, that it, the 66 books of the Holy Bible, is the highest and ultimate Authority for us who follow the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a fact, since ALL Scripture is "given by inspiration of God", that the Words we read have the Authority of the Holy Spirit, since He is the Author of the original autographs. To abandon the position of "Sola Scriptura", would mean that you would be rejecting the Holy Bible as your final authority, since Scripture alone, according to you, is not sufficient in determining what we believe. This is a VERY dangerous road to go down, and in my opinion, will cause you many problems. How can you every quote the Bible to anyone to defend, for example, to a Jehovah's Witness, that Jesus is Almighty God, if you do not do so on the Authority of Scripture? If you yourself do not have the full assurance that Scripture alone is sufficient, then you cannot use the Bible as it is intended, as the Word of God. The rejection of "Sola Scriptura" also would call into question the Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Holy Bible. Please do reconsider your position, as it is not "Sola Scriptura" that is the problem, but how people interpret it. Just because you see some heated discussions on the BB, to which I am also a part, should not make you question the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". What is the next step? If you have this view, would you also consider that Jesus is no longer the Only Way, simply because there are many who claim to be Christians, but life lives that are more like devils?

I will once again give a real life example of the great danger of your views. Dr Clark Pinnock, and "Evangelical" scholar, wrote in the 1960's on the Infallibility of Scriptures, a little booklet that I have. It is an excellent work and strongly defends this position. However, about 10 years later, he wrote another work, but this time argued the opposite, that the Holy Bible, though could be trusted on matters pertaining to Salvation, the Trinity, etc, yet, on issues that dealt with Science, History, etc, it did contain errors. This shift in his opinion, I believe was the "slippery-slope" to his other heretical views which he now holds to. For example, he now says that "God does not know the future". In other words, this questions the very nature and character of God. For, if God does not know the future, then He cannot be God, all-knowing, etc. How can a God Who Himself does not know how things will turn out, promise us eternal life? The problems are huge.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Icthus,
The problem that Matt, I, and others have with "Sola Scriptura" is not that we don't believe Scripture to be inspired of God and authoritative. I firmly believe that. That problem is that the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky but was written and canonized, over time, in a specific historical and ecclesiastical context. When ripped out from this context, it's no wonder that folks can't agree on the Bible's meaning on a whole host of issues: Calvinism v. Arminianism; easy-believism v. "Lordship" salvation; sacraments v. merely symbolic "ordinances; infant v. adult only baptism; pre-, mid-, post-trib and/or pre-, post-, a-millenial; full preterism v. partial preterism v. futurism; Saturday v. Sunday worship; Jesus-Only v. Trinitarianism; Peter being supreme over the apostles/Church v. an being important apostle within the Church; etc.

The problem is that adherents of each view will argue til they are blue in the face that theirs is the correct interpretation of Scripture to the exclusion of others. Some of theses issues might be considered "non-essentials" (of course, no one can seem to agree on just what are the "essentials"). However, many of these issues involve the nature of salvation and of Christ and God Himself. Since the advent of the proclamation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, we've seen countless divisions in (or from) the Body of Christ since countless individual believers--each with their individual Bibles and the confidence that the Holy Spirit is guiding them to the right interpretation--are arriving at countless (and often contradictory) interpretations of what the Bible means.

Do you really think that this lone-ranger, just-me-and-Jesus-and-my-Bible, schismatic Christianity is what Jesus had in mind when he prayed that we'd all be ONE (John 17:21)? Yet this is what happens when a person (or group) cuts himself off, via novel private interpretations of Scripture, from the living tradition (2 Thess 2:15) of the Church which is Christ's Body "the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23)

 

[icthus]

I can see why you chose the name "Doubting Thomas"

What you have said does not show why we cannot believe in "Sola Scriptura". Private interpretations of Scripture have nothing to do with whether or not the Bible ALONE is our final authority. For, this is exactly what the rejection of "Sola Scriptura" really is. Either you believe that "Scripture Alone" is sufficient for all that we need to know about God and His palns for mankind; or, its "Scripture" and "others writings". You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by icthus:
I can see why you chose the name "Doubting Thomas"

Thank you.

What you have said does not show why we cannot believe in "Sola Scriptura". Private interpretations of Scripture have nothing to do with whether or not the Bible ALONE is our final authority.

But I don't think the Bible "ALONE" is our final authority. CHRIST is our final authority. The Bible--Old and New Testaments--is indeed an authentic, inspired, and authoritative witness to Christ, but as a bare text it is subject to misinterpretation even by the various groups that claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations.. That's why the Tradition of the Church (Christ's Body), particularly as summarized in the Creeds (and before that the apostolic "rule of faith") is indispensible in intrepreting Scripture correctly. Otherwise, one is susceptible to a wide range of heresies as demonstrated by history as as recapitulated on this Baptistboard.

For, this is exactly what the rejection of "Sola Scriptura" really is. Either you believe that "Scripture Alone" is sufficient for all that we need to know about God and His palns for mankind; or, its "Scripture" and "others writings". You cannot have it both ways.

Materially sufficient, "yes"; formallysufficient, "no" for the reasons I've already stated. Scripture must be intrepreted by the apostolic tradition (rule of faith/creeds) as lived out in the life of the Church (the ground and pillar of truth--1 Tim. 3:15) which has been the historical practice of orthodox Christianity from the beginning. "Solo" Scriptura does not work.

 

[Bugman]

Scripture must be intrepreted by the apostolic tradition (rule of faith/creeds) as lived out in the life of the Church (the ground and pillar of truth--1 Tim. 3:15) which has been the historical practice of orthodox Christianity from the beginning. "Solo" Scriptura does not work.

That doesn't solve the problem. People can come away from a creed, or tradition having two differing interperations of it just as they can go away from scripture having two differing opinions on it.

Bryan
SDG

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Bugman:
That doesn't solve the problem. People can come away from a creed, or tradition having two differing interperations of it just as they can go away from scripture having two differing opinions on it.

Bryan
SDG

True, which is why when confronted with heresy, the Church has had to become more specific in subsequent creeds compared with previous ones in setting "fences" around the True Faith. Just compare the Nicene Creed with the Apostle's Creed as one example. (Arians can subscribe to the latter but not the former). Also notice how the Chalcedonian Definition expounds on what must be believed (or, rather, what must not be denied) about the Incarnation (Christ being God and Man) in order to be faithful to apostolic tradition. Both the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition convey the orthodox teachings regarding the Trinity and Christ as opposed to the heretical interpretations of Scripture with their distorted views of God and Christ.