How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

HP: First, I would hope that God, knowing my heart, would not find me to be arrogant. We shall all give an account one day.

HP: The problem is with the wording you use, i.e., “sole authority.” Why would one assume, as you at least appear to be doing, that such a search of Scripture would of necessity exclude the use of other God-given tools such as first truths of reason, matters of fact, or truths of immutable justice?

 

HP: Help us out. What can each of us do to act in a loving manner as would be becoming of Christian brotherly love from your perspective?

 

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this is a sincere request.

My answer will be a good example of where Sola Scriptura from your perspective is not sufficient. I would try a chapter and verse approach with DHK since he is a Sola Scriptura guy, but I will go with something intangible with you: I do not sense the spirit of your dialogue to be proper. You can do with that what you wish, but I think you both are frequently guilty of exhibiting an attitude of contention and strife.

You two kind of remind me of a couple of my daughters who seem to enjoy the strife between them. I think you both need to examine yourselves to see if you are functioning as a part of the body of Christ. I am wearing out on this BB thing since it seems that there is little edification going on among the users. Life offers enough troubles on its own, we don't need to voluntarily add to it.

Just in case DHK reads in: :wavey:
Galatians 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

 

HP: It was a sincere request. My sincere desire is for Christ to be seen in every aspect of my life. I also have a heart for the truth and believe we need to provoke one another, but that always must be done in a spirit of Christian love.

I will accept your assessment and grant to myself a week or so without posting on the list and seek the Lord to help me improve where others might see me failing. I sincerely appreciate your openness. You have had much to offer the list. Thank you.

 

There is no way I am reading all 63 replies. lol But Emily, I had a question for you. Why are you revisiting everything you believe? What prompted this questioning? I am not saying its bad, but I am curious what provoked this?

Also, by you saying that you have believed Sola Scriptura to be true for the last 13 years, does this mean you have been a Christian now for 13 years? I would also be curious as to your personal testimony of coming to faith in Christ if you don't mind sharing.

Thanks. :jesus:

 

Emily, did anyone respond to this?

 

Reformed Baptist,

I know that I did. See post 39, on page 4, of this thread.


:godisgood:

 

1. Because I believe the principle of sola scriptura.
2. Because I believe what the Bible says.
3. Because the Bible says that they searched the Scriptures.
4. Because the Bible does not say that they used any other methods but the Scriptures. I go by what the Bible says. It is not philosophy. It is simple Bible hermeneutics, the very first principle of which is to take literally what the Bible says.

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.

 

Grace and Peace DHK,

What I find confusing is that you point out individuals who although are historical personages, are not historically considered Saints of the Early Church so how can you suggest that these are examples of Early Church Fathers?

 

Hello Bound,
The ones I mentioned are generally grouped into the category known as the "Early Church Fathers." I realize that they are more accurately delineated nicene, anti-nicene, and so on. I haven't bothered to find out exactly what period of time each one lived. I am not quite sure what you are asking, though.

 

Bound,

The word "saint" is a synonym for "christian". Nothing more. It has nothing to do with behavior or humility or what century they lived in whatsoever. The most sinfull (while on earth) christian in heaven is 100% as much a "saint" as the "holiest" man or woman who has ever lived.

This buisiness of taking human beings and placing them "High and Lifted Up" serves no good purpose but to perpetuate the Church of Rome and the Orthodox groups strange practice of worshipping, and venerating, mere humans at the expense of Almighty God...who deserves 100% percent of our worship and veneration.


:godisgood:

 

I am not the one that makes that distinction.
The reason that I don't read the "Early Church Fathers" is precisely because I don't believe that they are saved, or at least a good many of them. The RCC relies upon them. Some of them be "saints" in Christ, some of them not.

 

DHK,

I know. I was adressing my post to "Bound".

I agree completly with that. Many of these so called "Saints" that the Orthodox and Catholics worship never were born again people, imo.

Of course they do. As the Orthodox do. They have to find their justification for their idolatry somewhere...since they cant find it in the scriptures.

Thats true.


:godisgood:

 

Emily, your journey sounds very similar to mine, at least in recent years. I too came to a realisation that SS was theologically bankrupt and was a guaranteed recipe for epitemological chaos and doctrinal relativism. Where I'm at at the moment is that I rely on Scripture + the Tradition of the Undivided Church (up to 1054); whilst that doesn't answer each and every question definitively, it provided a sufficient corpus of agreed doctrine to go on.

[ETA - you may wish to check out this archived thread which to an extent demonstrates where I've come from]

 

Actually, the restoration of full communion is already in the process. The Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria have already both accepted the outcome of the official dialog on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Pastoral_Agreement_between_the_Coptic_Orthodox_and_Greek_Orthodox_Patriarchates_of_Alexandria_(2001)

In XC
-

 

In reference to my tag line, when I say “Bible”, I’m speaking of the Bible we know it today. When I speak of Church, it’s the Church founded at Pentecost.

Holy Scripture was written by the prophets and apostles in human language, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and collected, and canonized by the Church.

We have the deposit of faith given by Christ to the Apostles and passed on to the Church from one generation to another, without addition, alteration or subtraction. As Vladimir Lossky describes it, the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.

This is our measuring stick to judge any conflicting statements made within the Church. This is Protestantism down fall, Protestantism is ever changing and dogmas develop and are changed to suit agendas based on a faulty interpretation of Holy Scripture.

In XC
-

 

It is the abandonment of sola scriptura that has caused the chaos and doctrinal relativism. When people assume there are multiple places of authority, each man becomes his own pope. That is what has happened in, for instance, the RCC. Since there are multiple authorities (according to them), there is no guidance as to what is actually true.

When the Bible alone is recognized as the source of authority (which is what God designed), there might be confusion about what it says, but there is no confusion about what is right and where the authority is.

What is "theologically bankrupt" is denying what the Scriptures themselves say about themselves. And that is what you have done.

 

Ok I'll take your last statement first.

As far as the LXX lets say I agree with you. Though there is dispute about this and for the sake of this argument I will agree with you. (Though unlike you I believe that all of the books in the version we know as the LXX were available to the early christians) That does not deminish the fact that the earliest christian writers referred to certain text in the LXX not in the Hebrew bible as authoritative. Look at Clements letter to the Corinthians in AD 90. He refers to Judith. As early as AD 90. Paul when we quotes from OT text is using LXX language and phrases. This would indicate that he was using the greek text and consider that with referrences in early christian writings to books not in the Hebrew bible that christians looked at the LXX as authoritative. So if not all books in the LXX we know as apocryphal at least some of them were considered authoritative.

 

What a lot of contradictions here! Firstly, it is SS which produces "each man becoming his own pope" - and we see the pernicious effects of this all around, particularly on these boards

Show me where the Bible claims that

But what's the point if there is still chaos about what is right? This is not the way Christ designed it,surely?!

Fine, if the Scriptures claim that. Which they don't. Anywhere.

 

I agree 100% brother. The abandonment of Sola Scriptura for a pretended Sola Ecclessia has led to the worst heresy, vice, darkness, and depravity seen. No church by their deeds are more reprehensible than Antichrist has perpetuated on the world, plunging it into deep darkness, which by the grace of God the Reformation, being a heaven-sent revival, God was pleased to use to restore the Gospel and the Word of God to itself rightful place--albeit not without much bloodshed perpetrated against them.