GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture  (Read 27359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #35 on: Tue Aug 25, 2009 - 20:11:01 »
Hey, Jarrod

Think about it:  How come no one before Luther challenged the authority of the church?  Now, they fought to determine church doctrine (especially in the era
of the ecumenical councils) and who should lead the church but they never denied the church.
My friend, many many people have challenged the authority of the church throughout its history, from its very inception.  You simply don't hear much about them because by and large they have been re-labeled in such a way as to exclude them from the ranks of those who were actually brothers in Christ.

Your assumption that those the church deemed heretics were in fact brothers in Christ actually supports my contention that these guys contended to be the leaders of the church.  They did not say "you go your way and I'll go mine"  It was important that the church not be divided.  Luther introduces that idea that some of our guys and some of your guys are in same church, but let's accept separate authorities.    I probably wasn't very clear.   

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #35 on: Tue Aug 25, 2009 - 20:11:01 »

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #36 on: Tue Aug 25, 2009 - 20:34:27 »
1- How come no one before Luther challenged the authority of the church?  

2- Now, they fought to determine church doctrine (especially in the era of the ecumenical councils)

3- but they never denied the church.    


1- Hundreds of people rebelled long before Luther.  He was far from the first.

As I said to Jarrod above, people rebelled to take control of the church.  Some left the
church, but people did not say "let's agree to disagree."  And certainly, people did not
say "We're the true church, because we interpret the scriptures better than you."  (Which was what my original quote was referring to, but I didn't explain it clearly enough.)

Quote
2- Has the era of ecumenical councils ended?


Yes.  It ended in 787 AD.  There were 7 ecumenical councils.    The RCC called councils later but did not invite the eastern church.  Therefore, what Rome lead was not an ecumenical (universal) actions.   To Rome's credit, they don't claim the councils after the 7th were ecumenical.

There is nothing wrong with local councils, but their authority is local as well.

Quote
Vatican 2 met in the 1960s, have they now been abolished?
The dictates of Vatican II apply to the Roman Church only. They never applied to the Orthodox Churches.

Quote
3- Nor did Luther, for that matter.  Even in the 95 Theses, he defended the church and the pope in many significant ways.

Good point.  However, the 95 Theses was not the last word Luther said about the church.  I do find it interesting how much of what Luther continued to believe is far different than Protestant --especially evangelical-- doctrine.  

Remember too that Luther (and especially Calvin) defined the church differently (and incorrectly) than Rome did.
« Last Edit: Tue Aug 25, 2009 - 21:04:10 by trifecta »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #36 on: Tue Aug 25, 2009 - 20:34:27 »

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3681
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #37 on: Wed Aug 26, 2009 - 14:22:14 »
I know that stevehut wrote he had a brown scapular, but now I can't find it.

I wanted to know if he was a member of the Carmelite order, as they are the ones who receive the scapular when they enter the order.

Ken

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #38 on: Wed Aug 26, 2009 - 14:25:45 »
Ken, I am not a member of any order.  It was a gift from my priest, about 40 years ago.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #38 on: Wed Aug 26, 2009 - 14:25:45 »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11876
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #39 on: Wed Aug 26, 2009 - 17:46:56 »
Hey, Jarrod

Think about it:  How come no one before Luther challenged the authority of the church?  Now, they fought to determine church doctrine (especially in the era
of the ecumenical councils) and who should lead the church but they never denied the church.
My friend, many many people have challenged the authority of the church throughout its history, from its very inception.  You simply don't hear much about them because by and large they have been re-labeled in such a way as to exclude them from the ranks of those who were actually brothers in Christ.

Your assumption that those the church deemed heretics were in fact brothers in Christ actually supports my contention that these guys contended to be the leaders of the church.  They did not say "you go your way and I'll go mine"  It was important that the church not be divided.  Luther introduces that idea that some of our guys and some of your guys are in same church, but let's accept separate authorities.    I probably wasn't very clear.   
First, I'd like to make a disclaimer: I'm not saying that all of them were actually brothers in Christ.  Many of them (maybe most) weren't.  I tend to find some grace in my heart towards the Pelagians, Montanists, Adoptionists, and Ebionites, though.

Second, I seriously doubt that Luther, or any other Reformer before just this last century ever said, "you go your way and I'll go mine" with the thought that-that would be an acceptable situation.  This is why Protestant churches evangelize Catholic countries, and vice versa.  Wars were fought over this before...I'm not sure how it suddenly just became ok.

To the best of my knowledge, Luther introduced no such concept that it would be ok for us both to be the church but recognize different authoritiative hierarchies.  He simply threw out the existing authority altogether due to its abuses.  That leaves (in theory at least) a gaping hole, which he (rather unsuccesfully IMO) tried to fill with the idea of the Bible as the authority.

That is, He has not imagined it as multiple valid authorities, as you suggest, but rather as no valid authorities, save God.

I don't think you've quite understood Luther, or Protestantism anyway. 

But perhaps I'm the problem.  To be fair, I'm probably not a very good Luther apologist, because I don't like Luther, or agree with him particularly often.  I actually think that his commentary on Galatians is one of the worst things to happen to Christianity in the past 1000 or so years.

PS.  It occurs to me that Charismatics really need to be considered as a seperate thing from "Protestants" generally.  They have an entirely different paradigm on church authority that isn't Sola Scriptura.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #39 on: Wed Aug 26, 2009 - 17:46:56 »



Offline Sherman Nobles

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • "For God so loved...."
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #40 on: Wed Aug 26, 2009 - 18:21:10 »
Christians share 4 sources of theology - Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason (though it's debatable whether or not Reason is a Source or a Tool we use to process the other three and arrive at our beliefs).  

All four of these sources rely upon and effect each other.  Some groups value one over the other, but all groups ultimately appeal to all four.  It would be interesting for people to list them in their personal order of importance.  For me, Scripture and Experience are about equal, and I re-examine personal traditions and am gaining respect for the teachings of a greater variety of the body of Christ (past and present).  

Experience is a powerful means of theology.  In fact, it's probably the most impacting.  When one personally encounters the Lord whether it be vision, dream, or voice, it's powerful and can radically change one's understanding of scripute, view of tradition, and even personally changes one's attitudes and thoughts.  Encountering the Lord typically effects change in people at a subconscious level.  It's like walking in darkness and then having the lights turned on.  Experience can radically effect one's understanding of scripture and view of tradition (personal and church wide).  Scripture if full of examples of people who had radical changes in attitude and theology because of personal encounters with God - whether it was in visions, dreams, verbal thoughts, or physical manifestations of God.  Both Scripture and church history are full of people personally encountering God.

We're all a product of these 4 sourses.  Some of us value one almost to the exclusion of the others.  But I believe that the more we value all 4, the more healthy we'll be in Spiritual Life, the better will be our attitudes, the more reasonable we'll be, the more we'll value tradition, the more experiences we'll have, and the better we'll understand scripture!

Offline Sherman Nobles

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • "For God so loved...."
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #41 on: Thu Aug 27, 2009 - 12:25:14 »
PS.  It occurs to me that Charismatics really need to be considered as a seperate thing from "Protestants" generally.  They have an entirely different paradigm on church authority that isn't Sola Scriptura.

That's an interesting thought Jarrod, the problem is that there are Charismatics sprinkled throughout the various denominations, everything from Catholic and Orthodox to Baptist and CoC.  Charismatics do tend to rely more upon Experience than non-Charismatics, as evidenced in my last post.  And they rely upon either Tradition or Scripture as their various backgrounds encouraged.  In other words, Catholic and Orthodox Charismatics rely heavily upon Tradition, and Baptists and CoC upon Scripture more heavily.  But for Charismatics, their experiences influence their understanding of scripture and view of tradition.

For example, a friend of mine, a Catholic Charismatic, was praying to Mary one evening when a Middle Eastern young lady of about 16 appeared to him in a vision and said, "I'm sorry, you must have me confused with my Son.  It's to Him you should pray."  This experience changed my friends prayer life significantly, and gave him a different understanding of scripture concerning prayer. 

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #42 on: Thu Aug 27, 2009 - 17:01:10 »
Hey, Jarrod

Think about it:  How come no one before Luther challenged the authority of the church?  Now, they fought to determine church doctrine (especially in the era
of the ecumenical councils) and who should lead the church but they never denied the church.
My friend, many many people have challenged the authority of the church throughout its history, from its very inception.  You simply don't hear much about them because by and large they have been re-labeled in such a way as to exclude them from the ranks of those who were actually brothers in Christ.

Your assumption that those the church deemed heretics were in fact brothers in Christ actually supports my contention that these guys contended to be the leaders of the church.  They did not say "you go your way and I'll go mine"  It was important that the church not be divided.  Luther introduces that idea that some of our guys and some of your guys are in same church, but let's accept separate authorities.    I probably wasn't very clear.  
First, I'd like to make a disclaimer: I'm not saying that all of them were actually brothers in Christ.  Many of them (maybe most) weren't.  I tend to find some grace in my heart towards the Pelagians, Montanists, Adoptionists, and Ebionites, though.

Second, I seriously doubt that Luther, or any other Reformer before just this last century ever said, "you go your way and I'll go mine" with the thought that-that would be an acceptable situation.  This is why Protestant churches evangelize Catholic countries, and vice versa.  Wars were fought over this before...I'm not sure how it suddenly just became ok.


Yeah, Jarrod, you're right.  Points well taken.

Quote
To the best of my knowledge, Luther introduced no such concept that it would be ok for us both to be the church but recognize different authoritiative hierarchies.  He simply threw out the existing authority altogether due to its abuses.  That leaves (in theory at least) a gaping hole, which he (rather unsuccesfully IMO) tried to fill with the idea of the Bible as the authority.


I agree with your correction and your last sentence (especially!).  

Quote

That is, He has not imagined it as multiple valid authorities, as you suggest, but rather as no valid authorities, save God.


I don't think he really developed a practical way of running the church.  By re-defining the church as the "invisible" church, I guess he really didn't feel that he had to.    I guess my thinking was by default, there must be multiple authorities.  

Quote

I don't think you've quite understood Luther, or Protestantism anyway.  


Uh-oh, you struck an emotional chord here.   After being indoctrinated in what I thought was
Protestantism (although it was usually called "Christianity"), I found P leaders kept on changing the bar on me.   Example: I thought sole fide (faith alone) was believed by all Protestants. When I was questioning Protestantism, pastors/ministers said, "Oh, that's not really what we believe. Where did you get that idea?"  (Being a convert to P-ism, I was an easy target.)  

The one thing that all Protestants agree on was Sola Scriptura.  But even there, as you imply above, some groups really support it to remove all human authority in the church.

The problems with this are many:  the scriptures themselves support spiritual authorities, sola scriptura is not really supported by the Scriptures, and the scriptures must be interpreted by spiritual authorities.  

Perhaps you are right, maybe I don't understand Luther or Protestantism, but, if that is true, no one does.  Not that I'm an expert, but I know more than most laymen know.    A minister steeped in theology may agree with me that Protestants support sole fide, but my ex-pastor would still have to say "No, we don't."  

I know (or knew - I've kind of forgotten them by now)  the basic doctrines of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.  I know (knew) what Arminianism is.   Most of my Protestant friends don't, nor do they wish to.    
    
So, I think what defines what a Protestant believes depends on who you ask.   That's a faith?  But this is what you get when you don't have any spiritual authorities, no councils to decide things, and only a text that not written like a manual to guide one.

« Last Edit: Thu Aug 27, 2009 - 17:24:37 by trifecta »

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #43 on: Thu Aug 27, 2009 - 17:22:02 »
PS.  It occurs to me that Charismatics really need to be considered as a seperate thing from "Protestants" generally.  They have an entirely different paradigm on church authority that isn't Sola Scriptura.

That's an interesting thought Jarrod, the problem is that there are Charismatics sprinkled throughout the various denominations, everything from Catholic and Orthodox to Baptist and CoC.  Charismatics do tend to rely more upon Experience than non-Charismatics, as evidenced in my last post.  And they rely upon either Tradition or Scripture as their various backgrounds encouraged.  In other words, Catholic and Orthodox Charismatics rely heavily upon Tradition, and Baptists and CoC upon Scripture more heavily. 


Both you and Jarrod make valid points here.   Of course, this is nothing new.  Paul dealt with real charismatics and false charismatics in his day. 

Quote
But for Charismatics, their experiences influence their understanding of scripture and view of tradition.

For example, a friend of mine, a Catholic Charismatic, was praying to Mary one evening when a Middle Eastern young lady of about 16 appeared to him in a vision and said, "I'm sorry, you must have me confused with my Son.  It's to Him you should pray."  This experience changed my friends prayer life significantly, and gave him a different understanding of scripture concerning prayer. 

While I have known Charismatics whom I respect, I am quite skeptical about what they have experienced.  First, though, I want to agree with Sherman that experience does count.  But, what a Protestant does versus what a non-Protestant does in such a situation is significant.  A Protestant would say such a revelation is from God and stop there.

  Forgetting whether your friend's revelation was correct or not, he should have told the church to confirm whether the revelation was truly of God.  If that had happened to me, this is what I would --and should-- have done.   We are not above being enticed by Satan's traps, and, therefore,  the tradition of the church has to trump personal experience if they are in conflict.
 

Offline Sherman Nobles

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • "For God so loved...."
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #44 on: Thu Aug 27, 2009 - 18:37:00 »
That's an interesting thought Jarrod, the problem is that there are Charismatics sprinkled throughout the various denominations, everything from Catholic and Orthodox to Baptist and CoC.  Charismatics do tend to rely more upon Experience than non-Charismatics, as evidenced in my last post.  And they rely upon either Tradition or Scripture as their various backgrounds encouraged.  In other words, Catholic and Orthodox Charismatics rely heavily upon Tradition, and Baptists and CoC upon Scripture more heavily. 


Both you and Jarrod make valid points here.   Of course, this is nothing new.  Paul dealt with real charismatics and false charismatics in his day. 

If you're refering to Paul's directives in 1 Cor. 12-14 concerning the proper use of the manifestations of the Spirit, it's not a matter of "real" or "false" manifestations, but the proper, wise, and loving use of real manifestations.  Of course, we are encouraged to test the spirits as to whether manifestations are of the Spirit, the person's spirit, or even evil spirits.  And of course, one of the manifestations of the Spirit is "discerning of spirits".

Quote
Quote
But for Charismatics, their experiences influence their understanding of scripture and view of tradition.

For example, a friend of mine, a Catholic Charismatic, was praying to Mary one evening when a Middle Eastern young lady of about 16 appeared to him in a vision and said, "I'm sorry, you must have me confused with my Son.  It's to Him you should pray."  This experience changed my friends prayer life significantly, and gave him a different understanding of scripture concerning prayer. 

While I have known Charismatics whom I respect, I am quite skeptical about what they have experienced. 

That's understandable considering you apparently haven't experienced such.  It's also understandable considering it's likely that you don't respect these Charismatics nearly as much as you respect other non-Charismatics.

Quote
First, though, I want to agree with Sherman that experience does count.  But, what a Protestant does versus what a non-Protestant does in such a situation is significant.  A Protestant would say such a revelation is from God and stop there.

  Forgetting whether your friend's revelation was correct or not, he should have told the church to confirm whether the revelation was truly of God.  If that had happened to me, this is what I would --and should-- have done.   We are not above being enticed by Satan's traps, and, therefore,  the tradition of the church has to trump personal experience if they are in conflict.

Actually mature Charismatics will often submit their experiences for the review of others in the body of Christ whom they respect, especially any more mature and experienced members of the body of Christ.

Concerning whether an Experience "trumps" Tradition or not, for the person that had the experience, it usually trumps Tradition.  A theory is typically subject to a testimony.  This is true even with being born of the Spirit.  It's one thing to believe there is a God, and another to know there is a God because you've experienced Him.  But of course, my respect for Tradition is not nearly as high as yours.  I'm curious Trifecta, how would you order in importance Tradition, Reason, Scripture, and Experience?

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #45 on: Thu Aug 27, 2009 - 19:10:34 »
Quote
So dear Protestants, whether you like to admit it or not, implicitly you DO trust the one Holy Catholic/Orthodox and Apostolic Church Tradition. Finally, for those who do not know, the core dogmas of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches (with 1.3 billion adherents) are IDENTICAL, their differences are  poltical


I chew the cud and spit out the sticks!

God is sovereign and His Word will not return unto Him Void ....despite the plots of wicked men to subvert and supplant the Truth.


I trust God for He has a way of using wicked men to the overall good of His Plans and Purposes.

After all ......they thought they were doing something when they crucified my Lord

I love the way He spoke prophecy out of the mouth of Caiaphas

John 11
50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,


I get chills and goosebumps over the way the sovereignty of God is displayed in that passage

Glory to Jesus!!!

I'm about to have church all by myself
 ::amen!::

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #46 on: Thu Aug 27, 2009 - 23:27:57 »
Firstly, greetings, Sherman,  hope you are doing well


While I have known Charismatics whom I respect, I am quite skeptical about what they have experienced.  

That's understandable considering you apparently haven't experienced such.  It's also understandable considering it's likely that you don't respect these Charismatics nearly as much as you respect other non-Charismatics.


You are correct in your assumptions.  I will say for a while I did go to a charismatic church even though I was not a charismatic.   There is no answer to the argument, "you don't know until you experienced it."

Quote
Quote
First, though, I want to agree with Sherman that experience does count.  But, what a Protestant does versus what a non-Protestant does in such a situation is significant.  A Protestant would say such a revelation is from God and stop there.

  Forgetting whether your friend's revelation was correct or not, he should have told the church to confirm whether the revelation was truly of God.  If that had happened to me, this is what I would --and should-- have done.   We are not above being enticed by Satan's traps, and, therefore,  the tradition of the church has to trump personal experience if they are in conflict.

Actually mature Charismatics will often submit their experiences for the review of others in the body of Christ whom they respect, especially any more mature and experienced members of the body of Christ.


I'm sure some do, but the receiver of the revelation makes the choice about whom to consult.  That's kind of like Kennedy and The Bay of Pigs: when he surrounded himself with people who all agreed with him, the decision became obvious, even though it was not a good one.  

And who appointed these leaders in the Protestant communities?  Who knows?  Do they have a knowledge of spiritual (church) history so we learn not to make the same mistakes?  If they are a product of most Protestant seminaries, probably not.

Quote
Concerning whether an Experience "trumps" Tradition or not, for the person that had the experience, it usually trumps Tradition.

Of course, it does in our society, because since the Reformation, the individual rules.  But, in fact, even we have checks against false revelation.   I met a good Protestant man who was an ex-Mormon.  He told me he truly had the "burning in the bosom" that is supposed to signify that the Mormon church is true.   Would you believe that testimony?  It was very sincere, but that cannot be the measure that supersedes everything.  

Quote
 A theory is typically subject to a testimony.  This is true even with being born of the Spirit.  It's one thing to believe there is a God, and another to know there is a God because you've experienced Him.

Yes, but feelings can be deceiving.  Think of my ex-Mormon friend.  Frankly, there is a real danger in depending too much on individual experience, and the Scriptures warn of this.   If the experience disagrees with past practices of the church community, it can't be from God or else the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic.   (By the way, a major way we experience God is through the sacraments).

Quote
 But of course, my respect for Tradition is not nearly as high as yours.  I'm curious Trifecta, how would you order in importance Tradition, Reason, Scripture, and Experience?

Remember that this is a western formulation,  but I'll be happy to oblige.  Reason comes in a distant fourth as reason is kind of the baby food in Orthodoxy.  It only goes so far.  It wasn't until Thomas Acquinas that anyone took it that seriously.  Interestingly, this movement caught on so much that some were claiming that reason is superior to experience.  One of our guys, St. Gregory Palamas, argued indeed that God can be experienced.   So, experience--and being that this formulation is a Western one, they mean personal experience--comes in third.   The Scriptures are separated from Holy Tradition and Scripture in Orthodoxy, since it is the Church that gave us the Scriptures.   Furthermore, as a said before, the NT is not a manual.  It is literary and even confusing in places, as attested in 2 Peter 3:16.  It is begging for context.  The church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, gives it.  Thanks for asking.   What do you think?    
« Last Edit: Thu Aug 27, 2009 - 23:39:41 by trifecta »

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #47 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 02:17:36 »
So dear Protestants, whether you like to admit it or not, implicitly you DO trust the one Holy Catholic/Orthodox and Apostolic Church Tradition.

 ::noworries::

Nope.  Don't tell me what I believe.

The writers of the NT were simply Christians inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You want to tell me that Peter and Paul get their teaching authority from the Catholic church?  You've got to be kidding.

In my wildest imagination, I cannot conceive of a more blatant expression of pigheaded arrogance.  Shame on anyone who believes in something like that.

larry2

  • Guest
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #48 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 07:54:56 »
So dear Protestants, whether you like to admit it or not, implicitly you DO trust the one Holy Catholic/Orthodox and Apostolic Church Tradition.

 ::noworries::

Nope.  Don't tell me what I believe.

The writers of the NT were simply Christians inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You want to tell me that Peter and Paul get their teaching authority from the Catholic church?  You've got to be kidding.

In my wildest imagination, I cannot conceive of a more blatant expression of pigheaded arrogance.  Shame on anyone who believes in something like that.

Dear Brother Stevehut, possibly the following scripture will convince some.

Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:11  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Galatians 1:12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
 
Paul did not get his teachings from the Catholic Church, Peter, or any other than by revelation of the risen Jesus Himself.

In fact Paul was given mysteries hidden from Peter, and generations before him.

Colossians 1:25  "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;"

God gave the finished word to Paul, not Peter.

Colossians 1:26  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
 
Even Peter had a problem understanding the things uttered by Paul below.

2 Peter 3:16  "As also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood."

And then in 1 Corinthians 11:1 we are told to follow Paul as He followed Christ, not some organization or Peter.

And then guess what, we're told in Romans 2:16 that we will be judged by that gospel that Paul preached. "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." I'm wondering why it is not tradition we'll be judged by?

My thoughts in Jesus' name - larry2


Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11701
  • Manna: 169
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #49 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 08:19:13 »
Can tradition and history be helpful in understanding where we are as an institutional church and what the early Christians did?  Yes!
Can one come to a saving knowledge of Christ solely by scripture?  Yes!

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8518
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #50 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 08:37:19 »
Can tradition and history be helpful in understanding where we are as an institutional church and what the early Christians did?  Yes!
Can one come to a saving knowledge of Christ solely by scripture?  Yes!

To think otherwise flys in the face of both.

Offline JohnDB

  • The Force
  • *********
  • Posts: 117605
  • Manna: 192
  • Gender: Male
  • scarey isn't it?
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #51 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 10:28:45 »
I have heard it said and believe it to be true...

Sola scriptura is on one hand a fine road to travel that has a ditch on both sides of the road. Many get in one of those two ditches. Ignoring anthropology, geography and history usually gets you stuck in one ditch and too elevated church tradition can get you stuck in the other one. (scripture does not interpret scripture nor does church tradition and exegesis have the same weight as scripture) I have yet to see any denomination have a perfect lock on interpreting the scriptures.

(I personally prefer scriptura Primera)

Tossing out all traditions except for those relevant at the time of the writing of the scripture usually does keep a person with a good hermeneutic of scripture.

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #52 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 11:16:50 »
Can tradition and history be helpful in understanding where we are as an institutional church and what the early Christians did?  Yes!

Not sure about that tradition part.

Tradition, unto itself, is really just an entrenched custom.  It is neither good or bad, true or false, unto itself.

Most of the traditions that we observe today, were not known by anything that can be truly called the "early church."  Doesn't make them bad, but I think we need to be honest and admit that they're relatively new.  

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #53 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 11:21:39 »
Many get in one of those two ditches. Ignoring anthropology, geography and history usually gets you stuck in one ditch and too elevated church tradition can get you stuck in the other one.

I think I basically agree with you here, but with a twist.  Yes, history, anthro, etc. can serve as good guides to help interpret Scripture, but that doesn't make them authorities.

Bible is the authority.  Those other things just help us understand it.

Offline JohnDB

  • The Force
  • *********
  • Posts: 117605
  • Manna: 192
  • Gender: Male
  • scarey isn't it?
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #54 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 11:35:45 »
Many get in one of those two ditches. Ignoring anthropology, geography and history usually gets you stuck in one ditch and too elevated church tradition can get you stuck in the other one.

I think I basically agree with you here, but with a twist.  Yes, history, anthro, etc. can serve as good guides to help interpret Scripture, but that doesn't make them authorities.

Bible is the authority.  Those other things just help us understand it.

That is what Scriptura Primera means and stands for.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11701
  • Manna: 169
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #55 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 12:20:49 »
Steve
 perhaps this will help on traditions.  ( First I am refering to early church traditions not those of recent orgin.  The concept being if this is how folks in 150AD understood it perhaps they had more information than I)

Here is an example.  While there is no direct command to take the Lord's supper every Sunday in the NT it is obvious that it is a church tradition that goes back to the first or second century.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11876
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #56 on: Fri Aug 28, 2009 - 16:03:58 »
I don't think you've quite understood Luther, or Protestantism anyway.

Uh-oh, you struck an emotional chord here.   After being indoctrinated in what I thought was
Protestantism (although it was usually called "Christianity"), I found P leaders kept on changing the bar on me.   Example: I thought sole fide (faith alone) was believed by all Protestants. When I was questioning Protestantism, pastors/ministers said, "Oh, that's not really what we believe. Where did you get that idea?"  (Being a convert to P-ism, I was an easy target.) 

The one thing that all Protestants agree on was Sola Scriptura.  But even there, as you imply above, some groups really support it to remove all human authority in the church.

The problems with this are many:  the scriptures themselves support spiritual authorities, sola scriptura is not really supported by the Scriptures, and the scriptures must be interpreted by spiritual authorities.   

Perhaps you are right, maybe I don't understand Luther or Protestantism, but, if that is true, no one does.  Not that I'm an expert, but I know more than most laymen know.    A minister steeped in theology may agree with me that Protestants support sole fide, but my ex-pastor would still have to say "No, we don't." 

I know (or knew - I've kind of forgotten them by now)  the basic doctrines of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.  I know (knew) what Arminianism is.   Most of my Protestant friends don't, nor do they wish to.   
   
So, I think what defines what a Protestant believes depends on who you ask.   That's a faith?  But this is what you get when you don't have any spiritual authorities, no councils to decide things, and only a text that not written like a manual to guide one.
Sorry not trying to step on any toes, my friend.  Nor to impune your working knowledge of Protestantism.  There is a lot of variation.

Basically the only thing that is agreed on is that there is no single organization which is to act as the end-all-be-all in matters spiritual or otherwise, be they interpretation, discipline, etc.

And, as I said before, that isn't a matter of multiple organizations being valid permanent authorities that express God's will on His behalf.  It's a matter of no organizations being like that in a permanent capacity.

God's will and judgment are His alone.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #57 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 13:23:34 »
::noworries::

In fact Paul was given mysteries hidden from Peter, and generations before him.

Colossians 1:25  "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;"

God gave the finished word to Paul, not Peter.

Colossians 1:26  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
 
Even Peter had a problem understanding the things uttered by Paul below.

2 Peter 3:16  "As also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood."

And then in 1 Corinthians 11:1 we are told to follow Paul as He followed Christ, not some organization or Peter.


I'm confused, larry, are you saying Paul had the truth but Peter didn't?  I believe Christianity is an apostolic faith.  The New Testament has writings of Peter and Paul.   Jesus gives the authority to Peter and the Apostles. (Mat 16:18; Mat 18:18).    That "organization" is the church.  The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, (I Tim 3:16), no single apostle. 


Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #58 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 13:41:58 »
Can tradition and history be helpful in understanding where we are as an institutional church and what the early Christians did?  Yes!

Not sure about that tradition part.

Tradition, unto itself, is really just an entrenched custom.  It is neither good or bad, true or false, unto itself.

Not quite.  There are good traditions (e.g., eating breakfast) and bad traditions (e.g, smoking by those in the military).  Protestants have their own traditions (mostly bad ones) and some good ones (from the early church).

Early church traditions are good as St. Basil the Great says

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term."




Quote
Most of the traditions that we observe today, were not known by anything that can be truly called the "early church."

Very true.  So is the Protestant faith the same as that of the early church?  Not really.  In Protestant terms, is Christianity really an eternal faith?  They say it is, but in reality how can they really believe it is?

Quote
Doesn't make them bad, but I think we need to be honest and admit that they're relatively new. 

Actually, most of them are bad.   But it is a mistake to say that no church follows the early traditions today.  We (Orthodox Church) do, because we go back to the early church.

Somewhere down the line, Protestants thought it would be good PR to call the concept of tradition bad.  Why? For the reason you say above.

You may not agree with me, but I appreciate your observations. 


 

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #59 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 13:53:38 »
I have heard it said and believe it to be true...

Sola scriptura is on one hand a fine road to travel that has a ditch on both sides of the road. Many get in one of those two ditches. Ignoring anthropology, geography and history usually gets you stuck in one ditch and too elevated church tradition can get you stuck in the other one. (scripture does not interpret scripture nor does church tradition and exegesis have the same weight as scripture) I have yet to see any denomination have a perfect lock on interpreting the scriptures.


Regarding your last sentence, JohnDB,  doesn't that seem kind of strange?  20,000 denominations and not one of them has it right? 

Quote

(I personally prefer scriptura Primera)

Tossing out all traditions except for those relevant at the time of the writing of the scripture usually does keep a person with a good hermeneutic of scripture.

The problem here is who makes these determinations.  In the Protestant world, each individual person does.  That is not Biblical; it is not the thinking of a semitic group culture. 

It puts too much authority into the hands of a single person, and also helps explain why there are thousands of denominations. 

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #60 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 14:07:58 »
Many get in one of those two ditches. Ignoring anthropology, geography and history usually gets you stuck in one ditch and too elevated church tradition can get you stuck in the other one.

I think I basically agree with you here, but with a twist.  Yes, history, anthro, etc. can serve as good guides to help interpret Scripture, but that doesn't make them authorities.


True, ideas are not really authorities.  People are.

Quote
Bible is the authority.  Those other things just help us understand it.

With due respect to you Steve, the Bible can't be the authority.  It really isn't in Protestantism, even though you all say it is.   Where do liberals get their authority? the Bible.  Where do fundamentalists get their authority?  The Bible.  Now, if the Bible were truly the authority, how can this be? 

As someone on these boards said, we really pick and choose the parts of the Bible to follow.  The authority is really in those who interpret the Bible.  This is why we have denominations.  Some people interpret the Bible differently than other people.

The key word is "people."  This is why Jesus spent so much time with his disciples.  Note that he gave them (people) authority to bind and loose.   He never says wait until the NT is ready and compiled (this doesn't happen for 400 years).  Instead Paul writes about how Jesus loves the Church.  It is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8518
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #61 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 14:16:00 »
I have heard it said and believe it to be true...

Sola scriptura is on one hand a fine road to travel that has a ditch on both sides of the road. Many get in one of those two ditches. Ignoring anthropology, geography and history usually gets you stuck in one ditch and too elevated church tradition can get you stuck in the other one. (scripture does not interpret scripture nor does church tradition and exegesis have the same weight as scripture) I have yet to see any denomination have a perfect lock on interpreting the scriptures.


Regarding your last sentence, JohnDB,  doesn't that seem kind of strange?  20,000 denominations and not one of them has it right?  

Quote

(I personally prefer scriptura Primera)

Tossing out all traditions except for those relevant at the time of the writing of the scripture usually does keep a person with a good hermeneutic of scripture.

The problem here is who makes these determinations.  In the Protestant world, each individual person does.  That is not Biblical; it is not the thinking of a semitic group culture.  

It puts too much authority into the hands of a single person, and also helps explain why there are thousands of denominations.  



This is of course our achilles heel.   However, it can also be said that we have a brain and it is obvious that we as human beings are both capable of thinking for ourselves as well as recognizing the falseness of what is being handed down to be accepted without question.  Having someone else set the "rules" for us does make some things easier and more unified at least in terms of externals.  Every group has its external adherants who haven't the depth hoped for by the leadership.  Do we leave our spirituality up to the "experts"? 

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #62 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 14:19:15 »
Can tradition and history be helpful in understanding where we are as an institutional church and what the early Christians did?  Yes!
Can one come to a saving knowledge of Christ solely by scripture?  Yes!

I actually agree with you, johnb.  

A priest in our church with a strong Jewish background actually read that NT secretly and it brought him to Christ.  However, this is not the vast majority of us.  

With most of us, we read the Bible already with a framework that makes us interpret its meaning.  Few (if any) evangelists just hand out Bibles (with the notable exception of our Gideon friends).  They tell us how to read it.  There is nothing wrong with this because context helps us to understand what it is saying.

Would you just hand your kid a Bible and tell him to read it?  No.  Why?  Because the odds that he will misunderstand some important point is great.  

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #63 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 14:26:59 »


This is of course our achilles heel.   However, it can also be said that we have a brain and it is obvious that we as human beings are both capable of thinking for ourselves as well as recognizing the falseness of what is being handed down to be accepted without question.
Thank you zoo, for your thoughts here.   Reason, however, is what often gets us in trouble.

Quote
 Having someone else set the "rules" for us does make some things easier and more unified at least in terms of externals.  Every group has its external adherants who haven't the depth hoped for by the leadership.

True.  We hope our "rules" will lead to more depth, but there is no guarantee they will.  In our culture, discovering something on our own gives us credibility, but this is just a cultural bias.  

Quote
Do we leave our spirituality up to the "experts"?

In a word, yes!  The only alternative is to leave it to ourselves.   I trust that my church knows better than I do.  We also have a relationship we our priest to make sure we are following Christ in practice, not just theory.

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8518
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #64 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 15:27:35 »
and what makes an expert an expert?  if it is more knowledge than me, then it is simply a matter of study.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #65 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 15:47:58 »
and what makes an expert an expert?
Ordination, seminary.  The church is not just the knowledge center.  Paul says in Hebrews that these people watch over our souls.   Younger people can be blessed with wisdom.

Quote
if it is more knowledge than me, then it is simply a matter of study.
Have you ever seen the writings of the Antinicene Fathers?  There are about 40 volumes.  That is why I (and most) depend on other people who have spend more time studying this stuff.


Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8518
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #66 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 16:11:41 »
and what makes an expert an expert?
Ordination, seminary.  The church is not just the knowledge center.  Paul says in Hebrews that these people watch over our souls.   Younger people can be blessed with wisdom.

Quote
if it is more knowledge than me, then it is simply a matter of study.
Have you ever seen the writings of the Antinicene Fathers?  There are about 40 volumes.  That is why I (and most) depend on other people who have spend more time studying this stuff.




So only the learned can be the leaders, not say, fishermen, tent makers or tax collectors   ::pondering:: ::whistle::

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #67 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 16:25:46 »
Cute, zoo.  No, it is the church that makes decisions about who gets ordination.  And that is a group decision.    They can discern (we hope) by looking at the whole person.

In reality, most of those ordinated are educated, but there are many saints (including modern ones) that aren't.

 

Offline JohnDB

  • The Force
  • *********
  • Posts: 117605
  • Manna: 192
  • Gender: Male
  • scarey isn't it?
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #68 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 16:46:40 »
Cute, zoo.  No, it is the church that makes decisions about who gets ordination.  And that is a group decision.    They can discern (we hope) by looking at the whole person.

In reality, most of those ordinated are educated, but there are many saints (including modern ones) that aren't.

 

Really?

Historical Evidence of Papal Lawlessness

In addition to having erred, many popes have exhibited gross lawlessness as well. One such example was John XII (955-964), whom The Catholic Encyclopedia described as "a course, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium...."(3) John was accused of sacrilege, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and, on one occasion in particular, was summoned by a synod of fifty Italian and German bishops to undergo deposition. Refusing to appear before the council, he threatened his opponents with excommunication should a new pope be elected to replace him. John XII finally died on 14 May 964 -- eight days after he had been stricken by paralysis in the very act of committing adultery. One of his contemporaries summarized his life with these words: "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect for single girls, married women, or widows -- they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul."(4)
         "Simony," or the "act of buying and selling of the papacy," also became a serious problem. Benedict VIII (1012-1024) purchased the office of pope with open bribery. His successor, John XIX (1025-1032), who was a mere layman, likewise obtained his papal position through monetary means, dishonestly passing through all the clerical orders in a single day. Benedict IX (1033-1045) was thereafter made pope through a bargain with the most powerful families in Rome. Clement II was finally directly appointed by King Henry III because, according to one source, "no Roman clergyman could be found who was free of the pollution of simony and fornication."(5)
         In light of such blatant disregard for moral purity in the lives of so many popes, one might wonder whether Romanists are required to obey such lawless leaders. Amazingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia answers in the affirmative: "A sinful pope... remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience."(6) What a mockery such a teaching makes of the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Roman Christians of the First Century, in which he instructs them in the thirteenth chapter to be subject to the "minister of God to thee for good" (Romans 13:4) not to a man who serves only his own wicked lusts and seeks to destroy the things of God (Revelation 13:6-7).

« Last Edit: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 16:57:01 by JohnDB »

Offline JohnDB

  • The Force
  • *********
  • Posts: 117605
  • Manna: 192
  • Gender: Male
  • scarey isn't it?
    • View Profile
Re: Sola Scriptura is contrary to Scripture
« Reply #69 on: Sat Aug 29, 2009 - 16:54:15 »
ONe more section from this lovely book that addresses your earlier quote of what I said there Trifecta,

Infallible Popes Versus the Infallible Word of God

Whereas history clearly testifies to these and many other instances of papal error, lawlessness, indecisiveness, and general confusion, the Roman church nevertheless maintains its position that the pope is completely infallible in matters regarding faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra, or "from the Chair [of Peter]." He can make no mistakes in official declarations of what must be believed by the body of Romanists at large. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes this point very clear: "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines... a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility... and consequently such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable."(7)
         Romanists, like Protestants, claim to receive the Holy Scriptures "with piety and reverence"(8) and insist that "the Bible is everywhere true in the sense intended by the individual sacred writer."(9) It is at this point that the Romanist finds himself on the horns of a dilemma: since both the Bible and papal decrees are viewed as the inspired and infallible Word of God, which of the two possessed the higher authority in the event of a contradiction (which is not an infrequent ocurrence)? Two allegedly infallible, yet disagreeing, sources of revelation both cannot be right; one must give place to the other. This problem does not confront those who seriously heed the Apostle's warning in 1 John 4:1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, we are commanded to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." How are we to "try the spirits" and "prove all things"? We must do so by the written Word of God alone, as did the Bereans in the First Century (Acts 17:11). The Bible is our measuring rod, or our "once for all delivered" canon (Jude 3), by which all truths claims are to be tested. Without this sure foundation of Scripture, we are only left with our own personal judgments, or those of our fellow men -- both of which are fallible, as we have seen in the preceding chapters and will continue to see evidenced in those to follow.

 

     
anything