Sola Scriptura vs. Ancient Literacy Rates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx5YU6MTZ0w#)
"This false doctrine [Sola Scriptura] has spawned countless heresies and thousands of conflicting denominations."
Anna, sometime when you actually post something in words, .....never mind.....
Helen,
What does your needless comment have to do with the topic? Please stay on topic. The 6 minute video is tremendously interesting and the points are valid. I posted in as an introductory to a possible discussion on the subject.
Most of the arguments against scripture being the sole medium of how God gives men faith is kind of asinine to me.
It leaves God out of the equation and gives an avenue to any entity who would to try and subvert the Word of God and inject false teachings, heresy and any other thing that satan would use to slow the progress of the Church toward the unity of faith spoken of by Paul in Eph 4:13...
I remember when I was Pastoring in the 80s in a small southern rural town. In our Sunday School class we would have members stand and read the verses to be discussed. It was about a year later that someone made me recognize how well some people who could barely call words had begun to read. Many who had not formal schooling (people in their 80s).
To use education as a point against sola scriptura is denying the power of God and the office of Holy Spirit...
I think it is a method that the RCC tries to use to validate their doctrine that can not be substantiated through scripture...
: AnnaM Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 10:34:40
Helen,
What does your needless comment have to do with the topic? Please stay on topic. The 6 minute video is tremendously interesting and the points are valid. I posted in as an introductory to a possible discussion on the subject.
Perhaps OT, but pertinent none the less.
I come here to hear from real people; their experience and relationship with God. I think it appropriate to link videos that speak to us, and support our comments, but personally I would rather hear what you have to say sister, that is why I am here and not spending my time on Youtube.
Quite frankly, I seldom watch the videos you post without comment, but I do read what you write. This is a result of my perception that most videos are polished propaganda, I would much rather hear from you.
Perhaps that is what Helen is saying.
But maybe that is just me.....
That is the point Carey... I was on a site where we debated the blood and body being actually Jesus' every time that communion is partaken of... and when the discussion began to swing to one side sola scriptura was brought in to say that there are writings of the holy fathers that are to be taken as from God even though they have no defense according to scripture.
God knows the heart of men and how easily we are swayed by satan which is why a base or foundation is needed. certainly a bible can not contain all God's knowledge... For God's sake He is God. But He does give us what is necessary to be able to navigate to the Plan for the Ages for our rescue from the bond of sin...
I was just discussing capitalism and some other systems that are great systems of men as written on paper... but they depend upon men being and doing what the paper says...and if we read and study the history of man we realize that men can easily draw up a great plan but it them becomes very difficult to "keep it" which is what belies man's problems.
Hermeneutics is a blend of art & science applied together to interpret the scriptures.
And yes, History/Anthropology is a science. Just like metaphors & hyperbole is art.
Without these two applied to the scriptures there can't be a lot of sense made out of them.
Where some make a case out of oral tradition being applied to scripture it is rather tenuous ground to be standing on IMHO.
not sure what your main point is JohnDB...
but mine is that I know my limitations... and how cunning we can be when left to our own inventions... When God is applied to any set of principles light will be given and the truth will be exhibited...
The presumption that literacy rates and sola scriptura are linked is spurious. Sola Scriptura does not mean that people who can't read are to nevertheless interpret Scripture.
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up. If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
That's what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture becomes the common basis of mormative doctrine when it comes to rules and limits of faith.
: HRoberson Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:13:27
The presumption that literacy rates and sola scriptura are linked is spurious. Sola Scriptura does not mean that people who can't read are to nevertheless interpret Scripture.
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up. If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
That's what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture becomes the common basis of mormative doctrine when it comes to rules and limits of faith.
well said HR
: AnnaM Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 10:34:40
Helen,
What does your needless comment have to do with the topic? Please stay on topic. The 6 minute video is tremendously interesting and the points are valid. I posted in as an introductory to a possible discussion on the subject.
To go back to the topic.
Apart from the lack of literacy the video touched on another point regarding the average person having access to the Bible – the cost of production.
During the lifetime of the Venerable Bede (around 672/3 – 735) the Abbot of Bede's monastery in North-East England commissioned the monks to produce three complete Bibles. Each Bible used the hides from 1,030 calves to provide the vellum with nine scribes working on each Bible. When complete one Bible weighed 75 pounds and with its protective box would have taken two men to carry it. Not exactly the thing to slip into your back pocket! Just think of the cost of producing that.
The invention of the moveable type printing press is attributed to Gutenberg at around 1450. His first book off the press in 1455 was a Bible. The cost was almost a years wages for a master craftsman (in paper – 2 years wages for the parchment version).
However for cheap books you need more than just a printing press. You need cheap paper, produced in commercial quantities.
The first paper mill north of the alps was not built until 1390. The first commercially successful paper mill in England was built by John Spilman in Dartford in 1588.
Even then I doubt that Bibles were affordable for the average person.
: HRoberson Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:13:27
The presumption that literacy rates and sola scriptura are linked is spurious. Sola Scriptura does not mean that people who can't read are to nevertheless interpret Scripture.
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up. If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
That's what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture becomes the common basis of mormative doctrine when it comes to rules and limits of faith.
So people still had to reply on other people's rules.
I thought the whole cry of people like Wycliffe was that every plowboy should read the Bible and make up his own rules.
Hardly -- that everyone should be able to read Scripture and see where heresies and such may lie. That is NOT making up rules. That is checking things out against the Word of God. It is being Bereans.
: HRoberson Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:13:27
The presumption that literacy rates and sola scriptura are linked is spurious. Sola Scriptura does not mean that people who can't read are to nevertheless interpret Scripture.
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up. If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
That's what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture becomes the common basis of mormative doctrine when it comes to rules and limits of faith.
Agree with Mr. HRoberson
The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness.
: TruthScientist Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 10:56:22
Most of the arguments against scripture being the sole medium of how God gives men faith is kind of asinine to me.
It leaves God out of the equation and gives an avenue to any entity who would to try and subvert the Word of God and inject false teachings, heresy and any other thing that satan would use to slow the progress of the Church toward the unity of faith spoken of by Paul in Eph 4:13...
I remember when I was Pastoring in the 80s in a small southern rural town. In our Sunday School class we would have members stand and read the verses to be discussed. It was about a year later that someone made me recognize how well some people who could barely call words had begun to read. Many who had not formal schooling (people in their 80s).
To use education as a point against sola scriptura is denying the power of God and the office of Holy Spirit...
I think it is a method that the RCC tries to use to validate their doctrine that can not be substantiated through scripture...
Very good point
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:38:40
The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness.
Bereans sola scriptura?
Sola Scriptura & The Bereans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWkIr-A3xa8#ws)
"The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness."
...and then they checked them against Scripture to see if they were accurate. That is using Scripture as the guideline for truth. That is what we do. That is what we all should do, and that is what Wycliffe and others like him were persecuted for wanting -- against Roman Catholic 'orders' or 'doctrine' or whatever you want to call it. Persecution and the killing of those who wanted to make the Bible available to the masses was very much a part of Roman Catholicism during the 16th century.
: Helen Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:54:37
"The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness."
...and then they checked them against Scripture to see if they were accurate. That is using Scripture as the guideline for truth. That is what we do. That is what we all should do, and that is what Wycliffe and others like him were persecuted for wanting -- against Roman Catholic 'orders' or 'doctrine' or whatever you want to call it. Persecution and the killing of those who wanted to make the Bible available to the masses was very much a part of Roman Catholicism during the 16th century.
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:38:40
The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness.
You need to read the scriptures a little closer~you statement actually is proven false by the very scripture that you used.
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."They used the
"scriptures alone" to prove what Paul and those with him were saying. Their faith was in the scriptures of truth, not in the words of men and what they thought about a given doctrine, but what God's word said concerning truth. You used the wrong scriptures to prove your point, but to your credit, you at least use scriptures, all Anna does, is that she quote from the Catholic teachings on any given doctrine that she thinks is the truth; and she think so, because her sect tells her that it is so. Saints get their truth straight from God's testimony concerning what is truth, and what is not truth.
RB
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:00:44
: Helen Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:54:37
"The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness."
...and then they checked them against Scripture to see if they were accurate. That is using Scripture as the guideline for truth. That is what we do. That is what we all should do, and that is what Wycliffe and others like him were persecuted for wanting -- against Roman Catholic 'orders' or 'doctrine' or whatever you want to call it. Persecution and the killing of those who wanted to make the Bible available to the masses was very much a part of Roman Catholicism during the 16th century.
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
Winsome,
Good try, but you are wrong. Paul said
no more than what was already common knowledge, as preached by the apostles before Paul.
~Acts 10:37-43! and other scriptures as well. RB
: Red Baker Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:02:56
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:38:40
The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness.
You need to read the scriptures a little closer~you statement actually is proven false by the very scripture that you used.
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."
They used the "scriptures alone" to prove what Paul and those with him were saying. Their faith was in the scriptures of truth, not in the words of men and what they thought about a given doctrine, but what God's word said concerning truth. You used the wrong scriptures to prove your point, but to your credit, you at least use scriptures, all Anna does, is that she quote from the Catholic teachings on any given doctrine that she thinks is the truth; and she think so, because her sect tells her that it is so. Saints get their truth straight from God's testimony concerning what is truth, and what is not truth.
RB
As I said to Helen,
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
: Red Baker Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:08:14
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:00:44
: Helen Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:54:37
"The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness."
...and then they checked them against Scripture to see if they were accurate. That is using Scripture as the guideline for truth. That is what we do. That is what we all should do, and that is what Wycliffe and others like him were persecuted for wanting -- against Roman Catholic 'orders' or 'doctrine' or whatever you want to call it. Persecution and the killing of those who wanted to make the Bible available to the masses was very much a part of Roman Catholicism during the 16th century.
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
Winsome,
Good try, but you are wrong. Paul said no more than what was already common knowledge, as preached by the apostles before Paul. ~Acts 10:37-43! and other scriptures as well.
RB
Common knowledge? What to the Bereans?
Why was Paul bothering to speak to them then?
Have you now thrown Sola Scriptura out of the Window in exchange for "common knowledge"?
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:08:56
: Red Baker Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:02:56
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:38:40
The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness.
You need to read the scriptures a little closer~you statement actually is proven false by the very scripture that you used.
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."
They used the "scriptures alone" to prove what Paul and those with him were saying. Their faith was in the scriptures of truth, not in the words of men and what they thought about a given doctrine, but what God's word said concerning truth. You used the wrong scriptures to prove your point, but to your credit, you at least use scriptures, all Anna does, is that she quote from the Catholic teachings on any given doctrine that she thinks is the truth; and she think so, because her sect tells her that it is so. Saints get their truth straight from God's testimony concerning what is truth, and what is not truth.
RB
As I said to Helen,
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
You said: "They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament" I am not sure why you would say such things in light of such scriptures as
Isaiah 53! All of those things mentioned by you are right there in Isaiah 53. There are many in the Psalms of David.
Acts 24:15"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and prophets."Do you believe he might had considered Isaiah 53 and many of the other OT scriptures concerning Jesus Christ. How many scriptures would you like to have to convince you that whatever Paul preached, that he got it straight from the OT scriptures, and many of those scriptures had nothing to do with your words:
"some things were foreshadowed in the OT"~but plain scriptures speaking of Jesus Christ.
RB
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:08:56
: Red Baker Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:02:56
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:38:40
The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness.
You need to read the scriptures a little closer~you statement actually is proven false by the very scripture that you used.
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."
They used the "scriptures alone" to prove what Paul and those with him were saying. Their faith was in the scriptures of truth, not in the words of men and what they thought about a given doctrine, but what God's word said concerning truth. You used the wrong scriptures to prove your point, but to your credit, you at least use scriptures, all Anna does, is that she quote from the Catholic teachings on any given doctrine that she thinks is the truth; and she think so, because her sect tells her that it is so. Saints get their truth straight from God's testimony concerning what is truth, and what is not truth.
RB
As I said to Helen,
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
But they could check to see whether what he said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus were consistent with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. Paul's preaching, we assume, would be similar to that of Philip to the eunuch where he "began at the same scripture [the book of Isaiah], and preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35).
: Jimmy Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:24:48
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:08:56
: Red Baker Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:02:56
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:38:40
The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness.
You need to read the scriptures a little closer~you statement actually is proven false by the very scripture that you used.
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."
They used the "scriptures alone" to prove what Paul and those with him were saying. Their faith was in the scriptures of truth, not in the words of men and what they thought about a given doctrine, but what God's word said concerning truth. You used the wrong scriptures to prove your point, but to your credit, you at least use scriptures, all Anna does, is that she quote from the Catholic teachings on any given doctrine that she thinks is the truth; and she think so, because her sect tells her that it is so. Saints get their truth straight from God's testimony concerning what is truth, and what is not truth.
RB
As I said to Helen,
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
But they could check to see whether what he said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus were consistent with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. Paul's preaching, we assume, would be similar to that of Philip to the eunuch where he "began at the same scripture [the book of Isaiah], and preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35).
Hi Jimmy,
You are right. They could check whether it contradicted the OT. Even then there must have been problems. How could Paul teach there is no need for circumcision and you must abandon the Law, from the Old Testament? In the end it was a matter of trust and authority.
Jesus told his apostles to go out and teach, not that people could look it up in books
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; (Mt 28:19-20)
They could teach because they were witnesses.
He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my
witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:7-8)
Then when they met to choose a successor to Judas Peter said "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a
witness to his resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Lk 1:1-2)
It's about witnessing to Jesus and what he did. The apostles taught from their knowledge of Jesus because they had seen it all. Jesus didn't choose scripture scholars who could prove his Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension from the OT but those who would be witnesses to it
Luke wrote his gospel so "that you [Theophilus] may know the truth concerning the things
of which you have been informed."
and which pope has claimed to be one of those eyewitnesses?
: Helen Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:56:30
and which pope has claimed to be one of those eyewitnesses?
Peter.
But we are discussing Paul and the Bereans. Can we stick to that and not shoot off into other topics?
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:54:20
: HRoberson Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:13:27
The presumption that literacy rates and sola scriptura are linked is spurious. Sola Scriptura does not mean that people who can't read are to nevertheless interpret Scripture.
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up. If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
That's what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture becomes the common basis of mormative doctrine when it comes to rules and limits of faith.
So people still had to reply on other people's rules.
I thought the whole cry of people like Wycliffe was that every plowboy should read the Bible and make up his own rules.
True...but this also the dark age was an age where the peasants were more concerned about what the elite was keeping from them... just another amazing fact of the power of God to do what needs to be done under any circumstances... good point winsome...
: Jimmy Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:24:48
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:08:56
: Red Baker Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:02:56
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:38:40
The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness.
You need to read the scriptures a little closer~you statement actually is proven false by the very scripture that you used.
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."
They used the "scriptures alone" to prove what Paul and those with him were saying. Their faith was in the scriptures of truth, not in the words of men and what they thought about a given doctrine, but what God's word said concerning truth. You used the wrong scriptures to prove your point, but to your credit, you at least use scriptures, all Anna does, is that she quote from the Catholic teachings on any given doctrine that she thinks is the truth; and she think so, because her sect tells her that it is so. Saints get their truth straight from God's testimony concerning what is truth, and what is not truth.
RB
As I said to Helen,
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
But they could check to see whether what he said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus were consistent with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. Paul's preaching, we assume, would be similar to that of Philip to the eunuch where he "began at the same scripture [the book of Isaiah], and preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35).
Amen Jim
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:54:20
: HRoberson Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:13:27
The presumption that literacy rates and sola scriptura are linked is spurious. Sola Scriptura does not mean that people who can't read are to nevertheless interpret Scripture.
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up. If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
That's what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture becomes the common basis of mormative doctrine when it comes to rules and limits of faith.
So people still had to reply on other people's rules.
I thought the whole cry of people like Wycliffe was that every plowboy should read the Bible and make up his own rules.
who do you suppose this verse is written to... 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
and then there is the one where it says that man shall not live by bread alone...
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 15:00:44
: Helen Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 14:54:37
"The Bereans were not sola scriptura. They listened to those appointed to teach and received their spoken words with willingness."
...and then they checked them against Scripture to see if they were accurate. That is using Scripture as the guideline for truth. That is what we do. That is what we all should do, and that is what Wycliffe and others like him were persecuted for wanting -- against Roman Catholic 'orders' or 'doctrine' or whatever you want to call it. Persecution and the killing of those who wanted to make the Bible available to the masses was very much a part of Roman Catholicism during the 16th century.
They couldn't check what Paul said about the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus against the Old Testament. All they could check was whether any references to the OT were accurate (e.g. some things were foreshadowed in the OT).
All Paul's teaching about Jesus was new and they accepted it with great willingness.
the Apostles and disciples had to work extra hard to confirm the word that they gave to converts and expose the judiziers who were still trying to teach law instead of grace. had there been a bible at the time their jobs would have been easier. but another circumstance of the power of God working through these men under extreme circumstances...
The explanation the Catholic Church wishes to give to "Sola Scriptura" is an example of how fond the RCC is of word games and vagueness.
See, to anyone outside the RCC "Sola Scriptura" means that any gospel preached, either verbally, visually or by writing should be in line with the Bible.
The RCC makes an attempt to give a whole new meaning to "Sola Scriptura", which is that the gospel can only be received directly from the Bible.
Of course the Catholic clergy fully understand what "Sola Scriptura" means, so this is yet another purposely staged confusion.
The RCC has taken "Sola Scriptura", disposed of it and put in place "Sola Ecclesia"...anything the Church says goes.
And we see what that notion has brought the world. The RCC has inserted itself in between God and believers, claiming that only through the Church salvation can be obtained.
From there all kind of false dogma's and doctrines have been developed, all unsupported by the Bible.
Papal infallibility, worship of Mary, purgatory, apostolic succession...you name it.
Surely the RCC must teach that "Sola Scriptura" is a heresy. The whole foundation of Catholicism rests on keeping people away from reading and interpreting the Bible.
The RCC in that is no different from the Sadducees and Pharisees in Jesus' time. They too either rejected parts of the scripture, or added to it.
Where the Jewish leaders screamed "crucify Him!"...the Catholic Church screams "anathema!" to anyone who dares to counter their man-made dogma's and doctrines.
The RCC is afraid of "Sola Scriptura" because it uproots her foundation and brings to light her errors.
: winsome Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:54:20
: HRoberson Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 13:13:27
The presumption that literacy rates and sola scriptura are linked is spurious. Sola Scriptura does not mean that people who can't read are to nevertheless interpret Scripture.
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up. If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
That's what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture becomes the common basis of mormative doctrine when it comes to rules and limits of faith.
So people still had to reply on other people's rules.
Of course. There are always more mature folks. Sola Scriptura is a limitation on the rule makers.
I thought the whole cry of people like Wycliffe was that every plowboy should read the Bible and make up his own rules.
I have no idea what Wycliffe's rallying cry was. However, folks should have Scripture available to them. That however, has nothing directly to do with Sola Scriptura.
: HRoberson Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 20:24:07
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
Hmm, maybe. The rule makers should not contradict Scripture, for sure, and I'm glad we have the Scriptures to provide a kind of check on the leaders. Yet the NT says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Moreover, not every truth is in the Bible. For example, we believe in the Trinity (not in the NT) and the divinity of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is lacking.
For evangelicals, there is no sinner's prayer in the Bible, so they feel compelled to add one.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up.
I am not fond of indulgences, don't get me wrong. But Jesus does leave it up to the Apostles (leaders) to decide which sins can be forgiven, so, I guess they can decide these things.
If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
I don't believe in Mary's immaculate conception, yet, I think the church can say this. Follow me here: Original sin is a doctrine of the west (RCC and Protestants; we EOs don't buy this one as a doctrine). Therefore, Mary cannot have original sin which would be passed off to her offspring. Therefore, Mary cannot be born in sin. How did they come up with the doctrine of the Trinity? I think through tradition, but if you use scripture to prove it, you have to make assumptions and inferences, just us the RCC did to justify immaculate conception.
I have no idea what Wycliffe's rallying cry was. However, folks should have Scripture available to them.
Agreed. John Chrystostom said what you did (not what Wycliffe said). Yet, as you say . . .
That however, has nothing directly to do with Sola Scriptura.
Yeah, just because some of us read scripture doesn't mean we believe in Sola Scriptura.
I'm just discussing the intent and reach of someone yelling "sola scriptura! Sola scriptura!"
I think it's a given that RC and EO folks will find fault with the concept.
: trifecta Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 18:59:19
: HRoberson Mon Oct 07, 2013 - 20:24:07
What Sola Scriptura means is that whoever is making the rules should rely on Scripture to make those rules.
Hmm, maybe. The rule makers should not contradict Scripture, for sure, and I'm glad we have the Scriptures to provide a kind of check on the leaders.
I'm not against local groups deciding that "this is the way we do church." All groups get to organize themselves in some fashion and script their times together. No big deal. The issue comes when we use our knowledge of Scripture and deduce limits to fellowship or "real" Christianity based on our deductions.
Yet the NT says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Moreover, not every truth is in the Bible.
This is true. But all the ones you need for returning to God are.
For example, we believe in the Trinity (not in the NT) and the divinity of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is lacking.
I'm not sure that not buying the concept of the Trinity is damning. I have no problem with Modalists or Oneness folks being in Heaven.
For evangelicals, there is no sinner's prayer in the Bible, so they feel compelled to add one.
I don't.
So, if there isn't a mention of indulgences, then the rule makers don't get to make them up.
I am not fond of indulgences, don't get me wrong. But Jesus does leave it up to the Apostles (leaders) to decide which sins can be forgiven, so, I guess they can decide these things.
I'm not convinced that deciding which sins are to be forgiven includes creating hoops for that forgiveness.
If Mary is not revealed to have been immaculately conceived, they don't get to make that up either and certainly not impose it as dogma.
I don't believe in Mary's immaculate conception, yet, I think the church can say this. Follow me here: Original sin is a doctrine of the west (RCC and Protestants; we EOs don't buy this one as a doctrine). Therefore, Mary cannot have original sin which would be passed off to her offspring. Therefore, Mary cannot be born in sin. How did they come up with the doctrine of the Trinity? I think through tradition, but if you use scripture to prove it, you have to make assumptions and inferences, just us the RCC did to justify immaculate conception.
See my comments on the Trinity above. I don't particularly care if someone wants to believe in Mary's immaculate conception. Making de fide, on the other hand, is a different question.
I have no idea what Wycliffe's rallying cry was. However, folks should have Scripture available to them.
Agreed. John Chrystostom said what you did (not what Wycliffe said). Yet, as you say . . .
That however, has nothing directly to do with Sola Scriptura.
Yeah, just because some of us read scripture doesn't mean we believe in Sola Scriptura.
Well, that is clearly apparent. ;)