Sola Scripture?

Again, we're not talking about the medieval Roman Catholic Church here, Bob.

 

Exactly, Matt. Yet Bob and others persist in throwing out that red herring.

 

Ay! I knew you'd misunderstand my point. Once again, I said the independants are not perfect. Still, much of the "tradition" you speak of is what Paul describes in Eph.4:14, rather than 2 Thess 2:15. (That verse mentions word or epistle, but that is not a license to try to fill in the "word" part of it with anything that cannot be found in the epistles. Anybody can do that).

Independants (or more accurately, non-denominationals) swept a lot of stuff aside, and said "Let's just focus on worshipping God and reaching the lost". They did not get hung up in doctrinal arguments, though they are doctrinally sound, at least on the books. (some may add stuff like word faith, charismatic emphasis, etc) You basically have to go to special classes to get the doctrine. Unfortunately, this has resulted in many in modern evangelicalism who then think doctrine is just divisive, and not really that important; just worshipping and winning souls. I am more intellectual, and less emotional, so I see that as a problem. So I am not defending that, just pointing out that setting aside the doubtful disputations and focusing on worship and soul winning does help erase all those denominational lines, and that was my point in mentioning that, rather than "which group is the true one".

You keep saying "whose interpretation of scripture--yours?" (much like a skeptic who uses this line of reasoning to 'prove' there is no 'truth' at all); and really your point is that yours is the one! But what you are doing is basically just like all the others (and I was not excluding the independants), but with your own distinct method of 'proof' just like the others have.

 

I would love to take part in this thread...

But, diving in at 82 posts...

Suffice it to say there is no such thing as "Scripture Only"...

Scripture is always interpreted by someone...

And, that interpretation is always based on traditions of the forefathers...

The Tradition provides a foundation from which to approach the interpretation...

When tradition has been found to violate a clear verbatim reading of scripture, change has been brought about.

Even those that cry "Scripture Only" have doctrine and traditions...

And, those doctrines and traditions are based on interpretations as to how to apply and practice certain passages...

Scripture states that two can not walk together unless they be agreed...

Thankfully, I do not have to walk together with all the different doctrinal statements on this forum! To be saved...

But, any group of people does need some Doctrinal Statement so they have a common ground so they can walk together in harmony...

As long as the Doctrinal Statement proclaims Christ as savior and Lord...

While we may disagree on some issues...

While we may not feel comfortable in *thier* worship services we can agree that they are our Brothers and Sisters in Christ...

In fact, in most cases, one of the chief indicators of a cult is it's very exclusivisty of others who disgaree with them even though Christ is clearly proclaimed...

Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Ephesians 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,

Mike Sr.

 

But Roman Catholic has been the major force opposing to Sola Scriptura as they put the Tradition on top of Words of God in order to ignore and disobey the Words of God.

Such slogan arose when the Reformers preached the Gospel and RC tried to object to the Gospel based on Bible, and when RC said Tradition must be considered.

If anyone doesn't know about this tricky situation, that person doesn't know about this world very accurately.

 

Actually, the tradition I speak of is in fact 2 Thess 2:15--what Paul apostles delivered to the Church whether orally or by epistle.

True, but nor is it a license to suppose the tradition is restricted to only the epistle, which would of course be contrary to Paul's clear statement. That fact is that the Thessalonian church was well aware of what Paul and the other apostles had delivered orally. And Paul didn't suppose that the oral tradition was less "keepable" through time than the written, as he told Timothy: "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). So here we have Paul commanding Timothy to pass on what he heard orally to at least another two generations. Paul didn't say: "Commit what you heard from me to men, but warn them that when the canon is complete they are to disregard any of my oral teachings and stick with only what can be found in my letters." Indeed, the early Church was well aware that somethings were not specifically written down, but they were kept anyway, unaware of any hypothetical expiration date or caveats on Pauls' command to keep the oral tradition he handed over to the church.

My point is that if one takes sola Scriptura as the starting point, that the next logical question is also epistemological: How does one know a given interpretation of the Scriptural text is the correct one? There are several sola Scripturists running around today, each claiming to be going by the Bible alone (led by the Holy Spirit) who come up with contradictory intrepretations of some key issues, including the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and the nature of salvation. How does one judge between these varying interpretations of Scripture alone without throwing another subjective interpretation in the midst? The fact is one can't. The truth is sola Scriptura was not invented until about 1500 years after the church was established. As a methodology it is unbiblical, unworkable, and unhistorical. However, if one adopts the epistemological framework of the historical Christian Church (which is well documented) involving the recripocal relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Church, one can avoid the relativism and subjectivism of sola Scriptura. Indeed, the NT Scriptures were written by the Apostles in the context of the Church and are the chief expression of the Apostolic Tradition, along with the apostolic interpretation and Christological reading of the OT Scriptures. It was also the Church that determined the canon, and it is in the Church that the Scriptures are to be understood. They were never meant to be yanked from their ecclessiastical context and interpreted by individuals or groups who don't share the suppositions of the Apostolic Church (in which the Scriptures were given) which was keeping the Apostolic Tradition (by which the canon was recognized and is interpreted).

 

The real dilemma is: if Sola Scriptura is a fact, there is no need for Holy See. Such a notion will not be allowed. Traditions become null and void--another notion not allowed.

That leaves the doctrines and traditions of depraved men.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Just some more food for thought--here's an excerpt from Vincent of Lerins' Commonitory in which he expresses how one is to know Christian truth:

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

Examples can be multiplied from the writings of the early Church Fathers stressing the importance of (1) interpreting Scripture by the "rule of faith" or "canon of truth" or "scope of faith" or other similar terms which express the same idea as Vincent's "standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation"; and of (2) keeping the apostolic tradition that was deposited into the Church.

 

There’s no dilemma, since sola Scriptura hasn’t been proven fact.

Look at the OT, the revelation to the Jews is embodied in the Torah, and this came in two forms; the written and the oral handed down from the priests and rabbis that was never written down…see Malachi 2:7 and Isa. 59:21.

So just as the OT doesn’t record every bit of God’s revelation to the Jews, neither does the NT embody all of Christ’s revelation either. It does embody a great deal and the RCC will agree wholeheartedly that “ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” BUT the Evangelists and the disciples made clear that they weren’t writing down everything…see Lk 1:1-4, 10:16; Jn 16:12, 21:25 and Heb 13:22. Paul the Pharisee that he was would never conceive of Christianity as a mere book religion. Paul knew plenty of direct quotes from Jesus that didn’t get written down…see Acts 20:35.

The Gospels and the Epistles all assume that you’re familiar with Sacred Tradition or at least its main lines. The RCC as I understand it doesn’t hold any truth on the basis of Scripture without Tradition, but then The RCC doesn’t hold any truth on the basis of Tradition without Scripture either.

You can’t take one without the other…This ain’t Burger King…have it your way…

 

Here's a fact for you: sola Scriptura does not work as an epistemological method. Now what?

 

And anyone else can claim that too, inasmuch as it presumes a whole bunch of doctrines and practices completely omitted from the writings.

You're still presuming that these "oral teachings" constituted an entire body of teaching different from what is written. These oral teachings were probably reiterations of the same doctrines that we find written in the Canon, and most likely involves situational applications of the same common teachings written down. A big problem in people's interpretation I find is that they apply everything to themselves, and ignore what it originally meant to the readers. So just like the things that we have preserved written applied to people then (like the pastoral counsel Paul gives), whatever was oral only would have been more of the same things. No wild doctrines and practices totally foreign to the writings.

Some legitimate points, but for you to ty to use these points to suggest that t is only your group that is true because of the establiched tradition of the already developed institutional Church does no good.
I'm sorry, but this is the oldest trick in the book, and once again, no different from everyone elses' method. Your only substantiation for this is the presence of some teaching or germs of teachings in the next century. But even that is not as monolithic as you assume. Even the universal "orthodoxy". People will appeal to Ignatius, Barnabas and Hermas as proving belief in the Trinity (often assumed to be as developed as in the fourth century creeds). But Barnabas and Hermas mention Christ's "preexistence", but do not directly declare Him to be God. That would be compatible with Arianism. Ignatius several times directly calls Christ God, but does not go into much other detail. That would be compatible with modalism. I'm not saying any of them believed those aberrations, but still, the doctrines were being developed as people put together the teachings of the NT as they gradually became widespread,(as most historians will admit), and whatever oral traditions they may have had; rather than some whole body of complete oral interpretation being passed down, (AND them being identical to the EOC of 1054 and afterwards, or the RCC, or whatever groups one is pitching for). The later Church could know from putting together all the scriptures on the subject, that Christ must be God and yet have distinction from the Father. Likewise, I have pointed out in discussions about soul sleep, that Athenagoras (177AD), who is often quoted to prove the Church always believed "the soul lives after death", still denied that "their continuance was as the continuance of immortals", (which would match what most bleieve today), and his view, while maintaining they were spiritually "alive" in some way, was still "similar" to a sleep. So all the Millerite groups (from SDA to JW) could claim that they had the apostolic tradition. Paralleling your claim that yours was "omitten from scipture", they say theirs was basically omitted from history, other than as a "footnote (as Armstrong called it), and as you quote scriptures on oral tradition, some of them can quote Rev.12:6 & 14 to support the truth being "hidden" from popular view, as well as "And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached, to all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come" (Matt.24:14) to prove it would be restored only in the [yet future] end. Even if you try to argue that your method is better, still, it is basically the same thing. Everyone has to fill in the blanks somehow in order to get their traditions in.

Basically, it all comes down to a need to trust what MEN say. I have to take your word for it that your traditions are true, and you had to take Church leadership's word for it, and if you point to early fathers, I have to take their word that they actually got their peculiar doctrines and practices from the apostles, who deliberately withheld them from the canonized text, and that they did not add to, adulterate, misunderstand, mor misinterpret it themselves. (Once again, man cannot even get the written word right, and you think we would handle oral teaching any better?) With all of the other religious hucksters, and all the other groups you keep talking about; I'm sorry; that is too much to expect. I see it as no different from all the tricks and methods they use. "...the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive". (Eph.4:14). You claim "Christ said the Spirit would lead them into all truth", and "The gates of Hell would never prevail", and they all say it too, (Actually, that verse is describing the gates of Hell as on the defensive from the Church, not on the offensive against the Church, for the record, so this is not saying there would always be a doctrinally perfect visible Church organization).

So any way you look at it, you're just trying to sweep everyone else aside and say "My group is the one", but the more you do that, the more you actually fit in as just another one of all the groups (What an irony! ); for that's precisely what they do. Y'all just use different methods, but it all comes down to trusting me. Everyone beats up on the modern age (beginning with the Enlightenment) as being so "man-centered", compared with the great Church age before that, but the only difference is that we have traded trust in the Pope (or lesser "Father", and/or king) for self. Everyone looks down on "self", but either way, it is still MAN. We must stop exalting these leaders and their government as if they are perfect, and above mankind. As much as you disclaim the Pope, that's precisely how his office got the way it is. The "self" way turns out to be less dangerous, because we tried to magisterium wat before that, and as much as Cgurchianity advocates put down the modern age, whatw as that age of the Church called? Not the age of light, but the "Dark" Ages! So the drawback of individualism is the splintering of the visible organization into various groups. But it never was about an visible government or corporation anyway, even if the disciples were ordained as a "teaching body" (that still does not carry the worldly, political power your later "magisterinums" had!)

Still, there is a basic unity of many of the evangelical Christians today. On the basic "orthodox" doctrines (Trinity, etc) there is basic agreement. You also keep mentioning Calvinism vs. Arminianism, but disputes like that comes from people speculating on how God saves and the role of our responsibility. (And they all ultimately conclude somewhere "It's above your comprehension, don't use your human reasoning". But only after they squeeze in their premise that already goes beyond what scripture teaches). But many brush those kinds of arguments aside as unknowable, or at least us not having enough knowledge for it to be worth arguing about. Just because some do so anyway, does not prove that we should all be caged up under a single magisterium, as if that would really solve anything. People will do and teach whatever they want, regardless of what organization you create. Sinful man will find a way to corrupt it, and there will be disunity. Blaming the "sola scripturists" who teach conflicting things on the nature of Christ and the rest of that stuff on our view here is as silly as blaming all the ancient heresies the quote mentions from the ancient Church on the "Catholic" body. The Catholic leadership may denounce it as false (as we do those who cross certain lines, and all the rest denounce each other), but they still exist. Certain things still even crept into the Church anyway. So this is the best we can do. Your system certainly hasn't done any better, outside of its own little body.

[ April 19, 2006, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Glad you brought that up. The Jews use the same arguments as you and DT, and it leads them to reject Christ! While most Jews do not say much about Jesus, the Lubavitchers (nd their Gentile [partners, the Noahites) DO go against Jesus, using these same exact arguments, even criticizing Christianity for "only using the Bible, and not the oral tradition! The "mosaic oral tradition" would come even before Christ, and if it is really authoritative, and the rabbis (the Jews' own "Church fathers") have it right, and Jesus contradicts it, then He is false, and then there is nothing we can say! The traditon came first. It is as authoritative as the written Word. So if we show to them out of the OT how prophecy and the whole scagrifice system points to Jesus Christ, "nope, the tradition interprets otherwise. All those reference s you think are about Christ are really about Israel [for instance]. God didn't write down everything He wanted us to know, so just using the book, you are missing something". Once again, just like I articulated above, you basically have to take their word for it. With all the complaining you all have done about how sola scriptura "removes any objective measure", or whatever, we see your "oral trafdition" method does it 10 times worse. Just the "seniority" of the tradition proves whatever these men say, whether it is scriptural or not, and we are worshipping a false Christ. The entire "apostolic tradition" is rendered competely false. The Mosaic one came first, and it says something entirely different. Worse yet, picking up on this logiare groups like Campbellism, Primitive Baptists, with all of their bams and other practices they tru to extract from the principle of "unwritten rule". (e.g. "instruments were 'banned' in the NT Church because they weren't "authorized" (mentioned) and we know this was a ban, because God didn't tell Cain he couldn't use grain offering only, so it was an 'oral law'" Sabbathkeepers here also try to argue that the sabbath was always commanded even though we don't see it commanded anywhere until Exodus, because "Cain was still punished even though a law against murder wasn't mentioned, so God did not write everything down" as Bob says. So as much as you say about SS, even your "oral tradition" method itself ends up causing more schism, not less. Men STILL "have it their way", and impose it on others, on top of it. Because of the very fact that you are removing ANY solid visible proof for doctrine and practice, and putting it all in the hands of men and their invisible CLAIMs of "tradition". Anybody can say ANYthing, now and you give heretics yet another, even greater weapon to use to lead men astray.

 

How very true. So who WILL we go to when we want some "dark ages" myths like "prayers to the dead", "Purgatory", "Indulgences", "Extermination of other Christians", "Bible burning", "Priests with magic powers"???

That won't come from the Bible "alone". Maybe there is a "hot dog vendor" that will suffice to lead mankind down that road.

In any case - I agree with you and so apprently does the Apostle John.

oops! that point was made "sola scriptura" -- better consult ye ol hot dog vendor.

 

you have provided no "guide" telling us WHICh "voice of tradition" you prefer to listen to instead of "sola scriptura".

I have offerred the "non RC" option dumping sola scriptura and selecting another source ... namely "the hot dog vendor" - (virtuous and not tainted by the history of the dark ages of course).

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "Sola Scriptura" guys always crash against the same wall. The other sources of authority in Christianity are the source for their Bible.

And it can't be more authoritative than the sources from which it was compiled.

 

How very true. So who WILL we go to when we want some "dark ages" myths like "prayers to the dead", "Purgatory", "Indulgences", "Extermination of other Christians", "Bible burning", "Priests with magic powers"???

That won't come from the Bible "alone". Maybe there is a "hot dog vendor" that will suffice to lead mankind down that road.

In any case - I agree with you and so apprently does the Apostle John.

oops! that point was made "sola scriptura" -- better consult ye ol hot dog vendor. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]-- I already posted that - right?

 

The point is that the "hot dog vendor" makes for a better "Pope" in that he is not tainted by the Dark Ages. So IF you are inclined to dump sola scriptura as the rule standard and test for all faith and doctrine - then you might as well select the "hot dog vendor" (a virtuous one of course) rather than one tainted by hold-over claims to the dark ages.

Why is it that those who reject "sola scriptura" do not come to grips with this?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Anyone can claim it; just not everyone can back it up.

I'm presuming no such thing. Perhaps you should stop assuming what I'm presuming.

(And vice versa). I actually agree with this to an extent. I'd just go further and say it includes the whole liturgical and doctrinal and practical life bequeathed to the church by the apostles which is the context for the written epistles--the context in which they were written and which thereby gave the teaching contained in the writings focus. I'd say the oral and written are materially consistent though formally expressed in different ways. And both the written and oral was handed down in the Church in its creeds, prayers, confessions, rules of faith, hymns, and its canon of Scripture. It testifies to the same Truth.

Ha! That's ironic coming from you who've attempted in other threads to insert a 18th century secret rapture theory into AD 70.

(Oh, you mean like the pre-trib rapture theory )
I never claimed that tradition entailed any of these things. However, what may be considered by a 21st century Protestant to be "wild doctrines" or "practices totally foreign to the writings" might not necessarily have been considered so by early Christians who were in a much better position to know what these writings meant.

Sure it does if the "group" to which you think I'm referring is indeed essentially the same in faith, doctrine and practice with the Apostolic Church from which it is in directly connected in time and space. For that matter, to the extent any "group" holds to the faith, teaching, and practice of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, to that extent that "group" is true. (Which is why, for example, conservative Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, COCers, Presbyterians and others who subscribe to Nicene orthodoxy regarding the Person of Christ obviously share much in common with the undivided church and are much closer to the whole truth than the Mormons, JWs, and apostate Jesus Seminar types)

Again, perhaps you should stop assuming to know what I assume. I'm well aware of the fact that earlier Christian writers within the Church expressed themselves in ambiguous ways which would later on be deemed imprudent given the advent of the different heresies which would take certain of those same expressions in directions that were "out-of-bounds". And who determined these new ideas (the new "twists" of older ambiguous expressions) were "out-of-bounds" and not just some fellow believers particular "convictions"? The CHURCH. The CHURCH declared that gnosticism (in it's various guises), adoptionism (in its various forms), modalism, arianism, etc were in fact HERESIES and not just other equally valid theological opinions. How? By recognizing these beliefs deviated from its Tradition--its Scripture, prayers, hymns, rules of faith, and confessions. Theological definitions and creeds thus became more precise with time in response to various heretical stimuli (often coming from opposite directions), and in this way the Church was able to clarify what it had always believed.

And take the apostles' word for it they actually encountered someone who physically rose from the dead and aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes??? After all, the apostles were MEN too, right? Should we trust what the apostles say, or be skeptical? Folks like Dan Brown would say the latter, suggesting that the apostles (and later that 'wascalwy' Catholic church!) suppressed the true nature of Christ and Christianity. Perhaps Brown and his fellow neo-gnostics are right.

No, I don't expect you to take my word for it, just as I didn't take anyone's word for it without investigating the historical claims of the Christ and His Church for myself. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is situated in history, as is His visible Church that He established on the Apostles, and both are available to historical investigation.

Except the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church can back its claims up historically, unlike these other groups you have alluded to.

But on what basis does a sola scripturist define what is "orthodox"? Sola Scripturists such as Oneness Pentecostals would deny that the Trinity is an "orthodox" doctrine. How does one decide what is actually "orthodox"--does "orthodoxy" vary depending on the person or group defining it? If so, you can't really claim there is even a basic unity among evangelical Christians today without begging the question.

But it goes beyond that. One's "god" truly desires ALL to be saved and has in fact died for ALL bearing the sins of ALL. The other's "god" wills only to save a certain FEW and died only for the FEW bearing the sins of the FEW. One's god is omnibenevolent; the other's isn't. Both can't be right.

True, people will do and teach what they want, but if they teach contrary to the Apostolic church then they are teaching HERESY.

Except that the "gates of hell" haven't prevailed against the Church and destroyed its essential unity. (BTW--"gates of hell" refers more to the counsel of hell, as the men of ancient cities would take counsel at the city gates--it is not strictly referring to some defensive posture.)

Not hardly. The ancient heresies taught conflicting things on the nature of Christ etc because they left the tradition of the Apostolic church in favor of their novel, private interpretations (aka sola Scriptura). The Arians were the quintessential example of this arguing from Scripture for their view and eschewing any words or phrases not specifically found in the Bible.

Actually it has. This "system"--the faith of the apostles, fathers, apologists, theologians, martyrs, and confessors of the one, holy , catholic, and apostolic church--has taught the whole TRUTH from the beginning.

 

already refuted that here

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3808/7.html#000096

But you would have to be willing to read the Bible to get that point.