The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

What did they study, please elaborate. </font>[/QUOTE]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.

Is it not plain what they studied. What do you think they studied? Please elaborate.
DHK

 

Just because there are some that are more qualified than me, does not alleviate me from my responsibility to study the Bible. The command still remains. That command to study, directed to me, is proof enough of sola scriptura, other theologians, notwithstanding.
Consider:

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

One would think this to be a strange statement by Paul. He says: There must be heresies among you. He says it in a positive way. It is good that there is heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Sola scriptura is taught here. There were false teachers in the Church at Corinth. If there were not individuals that studied their Bibles on their own, these false teachers would not have been "manifest," or brought out into the open--exposed. There was no teaching authority, as a magesterium here. Each studied the Word on their own. They could tell who the false teachers were by their own study of the Word of God. That is what Paul was advocating. It was good that there was heresy among them. It taught them to be mature in the word. They didn't need a "teaching authority" to point it out to them. The simply needed the Word of God. Some of these false teachers even denied the Resurrection (see 1Cor.15).
DHK

 

Let us see: We have the infallible Word of God translated into our native tongues, and the infallible Holy Spirit to lead in all truth.

What need have we of creeds, rules and standards of men?


He told us about where we came from, what we are to do here and where we are going. We seem to not agree with Him on most every point. How arrogant and audacious will we get?

God said what He meant and meant what He said--do we have itching ears?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Because many different men/sects/denominations, each claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit, end up interpreting the infallible Scriptures in many different contradictory ways. Yet the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, does not contradict Himself.

However, it's no more appropriate to call the historic ancient creeds the "rules and standards of men" than it would be to call the Bible such. Afterall, fallible men did write the Bible. However, the same Holy Spirit, which inspired fallible men to produce the infallible Scriptures, also can (and did) inspire men to correctly express the true faith and summarize true Biblical interpretation in infallible creeds and conciliar decisions (and indeed to infallibly determine the final boundaries of the canon of Scripture). The model for this is the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 in which the apostles said: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).

Yet despite these realities, many folks here will persist in proclaiming their right to privately interpret Scripture, apart from the Spirit guided tradition of the Church, despite the fact that Peter said Scripture is not of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

(Selah V)

 

Well they certainly didn't study the NT. When Paul wrote the letters to the Thessolonians, the gospels weren't even written.

 

The Bible IS NOT the product of "fallible men" according to "pope Peter".

HE said that "NO scripture is given as a man's interpretation but rather Holy men of old MOVED by the HOLY SPIRIT SPOKE from God".

The SOURCE is the Holy Spirit according to "pope Peter".

That means that every time you see an RC member arguing that the "Holy Spirit is not good enough" -- they are in fact arguing against the point that "pope Peter" made.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul did not condemn the non-Christians in Acts 17:11 for "studying the scriptures to sEE IF those things he taught were in fact true". RAther they are COMMENDED for that method.

How devastating to the ideas that the RCC would have us believe.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well they certainly didn't study the NT. When Paul wrote the letters to the Thessolonians, the gospels weren't even written. </font>[/QUOTE]Did they need them? They were able to study the Scriptures, as the Bible says, (the Old Testament happens to be Scripture also), and verify a New Testament message using the Old Testament. Even by that time, Matthew, and James, were written, and may have been accessible by the Bereans.
DHK

 

In the OT "Images" was interpreted to mean images of God and idols of gods because God is spirit and not physical. If Jesus was God then this command was nullified because God became physical and thus could be skeched.

 

The ecumenical creeds were written to exclude obvious heretics, not to provide a barrier for inclusion in the Church. Anyone who the creeds didn't exclude could be included.

In this spirit, the Christian Reformed Church accepts as "Christian" anyone who had had Christian baptism and accepts the ecumenical creeds. We have now made peace with the RCC and are working out the internal details. Any Catholic is (should be) welcome to join us in communion and any CRC member is now permitted to join Catholics at Mass.

 

That's my understanding also. Before God revealed Himself as part of His physical creation, any representation of Him was bound to be misleading. After He was revealed in Jesus, that danger no longer existed.

 

Matt Black,

Me...

You...

Born again people of all persuasions understand that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the father, but by Him. That salvation can not be attained apart from Christ through false religions. That there is a coming judgment and all will stand before God and give account. That we are all sinners an in need of salvation. That God is triune in nature. That the scriptures are God breathed wisdom to us from God.

We need no centralised authority to command us to believe these things. Differences beyond foundational things is normal and to be expected.

Me...

You...

The scriptures make it plain.

Its literally thundered from the scriptures. If I started typing them all out I would be still be typing 4 hours from now and I wouldnt get enough sleep for work tomorrow.

Such silliness. Its as utterly silly as when Catholcs say "why, the only place "faith" and "alone" is in James where it says we are not justified by faith alone!"

...actually expecting thinking people with clear minds to actually buy such nonsense.

Me...

You...

The scale of "truth" and the scale of plain ole "common sense".

Anyone with a good mind, common sense, and the ability to read the scriptures and compare religious systems against them, as God has admonished us to do continually...so we can hold to the good, and reject the false.

Anyone born again of Gods Holy Spirit.

Then why are those folks so very much closer in line with truth than those who reject Gods way for a centralised "truth gestapo" to spoon feed the submissive masses?

Again, here are your choices. THESE are the groups who do things YOUR way...

Jehovahs Witnesses.

David Koresh.

Mormons.

Catholic Church.

Jim Jones.

Eastern Orthodox.

Christian Science.

And you are considering going down the paths that THOSE groups have erroniously taken???

Befuddled,

Mike

 

Yes, the OT is scripture; however, they could only use the OT prophecies about the coming Messiah to study what Paul was telling them had been fulfilled, but they couldn't use the scriptures to verify the miracles that Paul conveyed.

When I was growing up, we were taught the doctrine of "Sola Scripture" and we don't believe it if it's not in the Bible. Also, we are silent where the scriptures are silent. Really? What about impossing your own belief?

Well, let's take a look at a few of these.

1. Infant Baptism - although it is not specifically written out, there are plenty of passages that elude to it. The Baptist church rejected infant Baptism based on the assumption that there were not any infants where passages state "whole household" was baptized. Here they are adding their own belief to the scripture and state that the scripture is silent.

2. Women not wearing pants - this is not forbidden in the Bible. They use the passage that women should be modest to back up their belief. So, from the time I was in elementary school up through the 8th grade, we were not allowed to wear pants to church activities. Yeah, those cullocks (sp?)with the big baggy leg holes where sure modest. Not! Whenever we went horseback riding, the boys wanted to help the girls get on their horse so they could get a peek. Let's not forget how after you sat down, the cullocks bunched up around your upper thigh and you were giving the boys an eye full. How about playing softball in those things and sliding into home plate showing your unmentionables off to God and everyone else. When I was in 9th grade, the church decided to do away with cullocks and said that the girls could wear loose fitting pants to youth group activities.

3. Movies - couldn't go. Where in the Bible is this found? I couldn't go with my little neighborhood friends to see Snow White, Dumbo, Lady & The Tramp, Mary Poppins, Sound of Music, etc. I never saw these movies until I was 24 and then it was on VHS when I bought them for my daughter.

4. Dancing - forbidden. Kind of reminds me of Footloose. However, the Bible does mention in several places in the OT where dancing was not forbidden, even a time to dance. Whenever I would ask about this, I was told that the NT was our standard of living, so since it wasn't in the NT it was a sin. (Whatever)

 

Matt, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any "plain, thundering Scriptures" from Mike to prove sola Scriptura. Mike has said that sola fide was also "thundered forth" from Scriptures, yet none of the numerous Scriptures he posted (on 3-4 different occasions during a previous thread) taught that we are justfied by faith alone. OTOH, when we point out Scriptures which specifically state we are not justified by faith alone (James 2:24) or that we are to hold the traditions whether written or oral (2 Thess 2:15), Mike says that we are the ones who "mangle" the Scriptures like those dastardly Catholics.

Selah V

Sadly befuddled,

DT

 

Just like what you said; by God's providence, the core of doctrines agreed on in evangelical protestantism or nondenominationalis. Each group or circle may add some of its own doctrines to the list of "essentials", and even insist on it fiercely; but on Christ and the basics of salvation; the teachings are pretty much the same.

If the Holy Spirit can act through "The Church" (in spite of itself); then He can work through one man (in spite of himself); and once again; the organization was no better than the one man. You look at Luther's riase as other than divine providence; but then so can one look at the defeat of Arianism. The whole battle was political; which is why that "Church" was almost carried away by it at first. Many bishops really did not like the Athanasian concept--even many who signed the Nicene Creed; but it did better fit scriptural revelation than Ariansm. But many were still torn; and thought Arianism was better. Then; the conquering Teutonic tribes became Arian. I forgot what exact cultural force turned the tide back to the Nicene view. But if it was God who stepped in and moved the Church this way; then it would also be possible, for God to use one man to highlight another truth when this "Church" organization would continue to degrade in other doctrinal areas, and God would no longer work through it. God is not bound to continue using this organization just because it stems from the early Church. It is rather bound by His Word, and used or not used according to its adherance to that Word.

 

Ah...but to whose (or which) interpretation of His Word are we bound? Anyone can claim loyalty to a bare text. However, texts require interpretation. (It does no good to claim guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpretation, since many claim this yet they contradict one another.) Among the myriad of competing interpretations of Scripture even among "Bible-believing" Protestants, how does one determine who is interpreting correctly? Members of each sect will claim that it's obviously they who are interpreting correctly as the debates on this Baptistboard amply demonstrate. Yet the debates never end...

 

The same can be asked; whose organization, are we bound instead? Just the one with the most seniority? Then, the question becomes which time period of this organization; since it has changed drastically oover the centuries?
All you are doing is shifting the problem from individual men to a group of men. You think that promotes "consensus"; but you're still dealing with the same men (mankind), and whether bound together in an organization, or acting alone with their own Bible; the problem will be the same. Only with the concentrated power comes more corruption and it is harder to correct it and prevent it from becoming an all-controlling monstrosity.

Oh, and forgot to address:

Then why when numbering our "ecumenical councils" do we skip that one and only start with the one that marked the emperor's promotion of the Church to worldly power?

Also, just noticed:

"Private" there means "esoteric"; meaning arrived at by some secret means not obvious to any reader. The Church's support of its doctrines and practices that can't be defended by scripture alone by some "secret apostolic tradition" is basically what that is referring to, not Luther's use of "private").

This is what "apostolic tradition" would come into play. But this tradition would not be anything other than what was in what became eventually written down and circulated as the NT.