Here we go again. The issue of "sola scriptura" is back thanks to some recent discussions. I spent a few days with Dr. Albert Mohler and Richard Land. Mohler is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Land has served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
I think sola scriptura is a dangerous and misleading concept that is unworkable. It divorces the Bible from the only community that is capable of interpreting it as the Bible. To rely one personal interpretation opens the door to perverted theology.
Only the Church, guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, can properly read and interpret those writings that were written under the inspiration of the Spirit and which have been collected together in the one canon by the action of the Spirit. The Bible, as Bible, only teaches anything because the Church teaches on the basis of the Bible and tells us what it means–or perhaps better, because God guides the Church to discern and express what he means in and by his Word. Can the true meaning of the Scripture can be known apart from a community that is truthful and holy? I say no.
There must be an authoritative Church if the Scripture is to function as Scripture within the life of Christian believers. Otherwise, we are simply left with everyone’s private opinions. In America, this is called “denominations.”
The Bible is a tool and we must know how to use it. Far too many read it, think they understand it and set off to teach others their flawed ideas. Study the Bible, but do it through the guidence of the Church that can instruct the faithful with the historical and universal understanding of the scriptures.
49 comments:
Far too many read it, think they understand it and set off to teach others their flawed ideas.
I would submit that this is extremely evident within the Roman Catholic church.
*watches worms crawl out of the can*
Are you talking about the teachings of individuals or the historical teachings of the entire church over the past 2000 years?
I think sola scriptura is a dangerous and misleading concept that is unworkable.
Think what you want... but make sure you know what the doctrine Is and what it ISN'T, and WHO FOLLOWS it and WHO DOESN'T.
It divorces the Bible from the only community that is capable of interpreting it as the Bible.
The Scriptures are to be OBEYED, NOT INTERPRETED. the Spirit of God unfolds it's meaning to God's people, the Church, the Bride, the Body of Christ, ALL REDEEMED INDIVIDUALS. The Spirit is not divided - He teaches ONE TRUTH.
To rely one personal interpretation opens the door to perverted theology.
It does. But stating/thinking that all non-catholics engage in this type of crap is nonsense.
There must be an authoritative Church if the Scripture is to function as Scripture within the life of Christian believers.
What leads you to this conclusion? There is a Holy Book and a Holy Spirit ... the combination leads to Holy People. Individuals in Scripture are commanded to be Holy.
Otherwise, we are simply left with everyone’s private opinions. In America, this is called “denominations.”
Limited knowledge of denominations.
The Bible is a tool and we must know how to use it. Far too many read it, think they understand it and set off to teach others their flawed ideas. Study the Bible, but do it through the guidence of the Church that can instruct the faithful with the historical and universal understanding of the scriptures.
Well since the Church has departed in at least one part of the Scriptures, then the Church has failed. Look at the Didache (earliest non-canonical manuscript) and the Scriptures and compare to a local Catholic Church - very little resemblance.
Re-worked your statement ...
The Bible is a REVELATION OF GOD AND FROM GOD and we must TRUST HIM TO USE IT IN OUR LIVES. Far too many read it, think they understand it and set off to teach others their flawed ideas. READ the Bible, but do it through the guidence of the SPIRIT OF GOD that can instruct the faithful with the WHOLE TRUTH OF GOD INFINITE IN LOVE, GRACE, MERCY AND HOLINESS AND JUSTICE.
The evolving teachings of the past 2000 years.
"Only the Church, guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, can properly read and interpret those writings that were written under the inspiration of the Spirit and which have been collected together in the one canon by the action of the Spirit."
~How does the Church find out who it is and where it comes from and what it should look like? By what standard does it verify exactly to which spirit it is listening?
Re. the comment name hidden made, far too many read it, think they understand it, etc. that can be said about Non-Catholics as well. What makes you or any one else for that matter an authority, why are there so many religious demoninations? Because everyone interprets it in a different way, so, who is right? I think we'll find out on judgement day.
that can be said about Non-Catholics as well.
Yep. Can be said about anyone.
are there so many religious demoninations?
Human pride and a refusal to submit to the Holy Spirit. Although there aren't near as many "denominations" as we are led to believe by the often misquoted "30k - 40k" figure.
Because everyone interprets it in a different way, so, who is right?
The Holy Spirit is right. Only when we COMPLETELY submit to His authority (which, in our sinful state, is extremely difficult to do) are we 100% correct.
I think we'll find out on judgement day.
Indeed.
I agree with you totally Mark.
I've noticed in a lot of these comments that the Non-Catholics are always critical of the Catholics, telling them that they misinterpret scripture, etc. but the Catholics never critique their beliefs telling them that they're wrong in their interpretations.
but the Catholics never critique their beliefs telling them that they're wrong in their interpretations.
Ummm.... Did you even read the post?!?!?
I was just thinking, there are different "denominations" within Catholocism as well, so to know exactly where we're starting from and to be sure we know what each other is taling about, under which denomination does the Church fall as you refer to it here PB, and when you say Sola Scriptura, exactly what is the definition that you are holding?
I know sometimes it's easy to debate things for an hour only to find out at the end that we were thinking different things! ;)
I've noticed in a lot of these comments that the Non-Catholics are always critical of the Catholics, telling them that they misinterpret scripture, etc.
True, because what is presented isn't even derived FROM the text! Don't tell us Scriptures says, then we look and find it doesn't.
but the Catholics never critique their beliefs telling them that they're wrong in their interpretations.
I have no idea what/where you are reading ... but, that said, most catholics say X and then say that that is the truth. End of the discussion, for them. I submit that most of the catholics I have come across don't actually read the text in context. They read what someone else (usually a Church official of some rank) has said the text says. It is also my experience that when the actual text and words and language and context are exposed the discussion ends. Again, n ot all are as I described, but many I have come across are. This is very different from many of the non-catholics I have come across. Again - my own view of it.
I think you have a misunderstanding of Catholics, how can you speak for "most" Catholics saying that they do not read the text in context. I don't understand that line of thinking.
At a Catholic Mass, 3 passages from scripture are read, and we don't need a church official to tell us what the text says. You have Pastors and Elders in your churches who give you guidance on scripture, don't you???
After saying this, I think we should move on to a new mode of discussion after all we are all Christians and should conduct ourselves as christians.
Why doesn't anyone here respond to some of the other blogs that are posted? Like the DaVinci Code for instance, its an attack on all of Christianity yet are Christians sticking together to combat it--no, we're fighting among each other. Sad, very sad.
I agree Anon. the constant bickering between Catholic Christians and Non-Catholic Christians is never ending and doesn't solve anything, we have our differences and we should respect each others differences, after all don't we all believe the same core belief, that Jesus died so that our sins would be forgiven, and that he is our Savour, so lets put it to rest folks.
So are the anons saying that we should keep quite when the beliefs we as non-Catholic Christians hold are criticized and misrepresented?
To name hidden: No, we don't think anyone should keep quiet when their beliefs are criticized and misrepresented, Catholics likewise should not keep quiet when we are criticized, and it seems that we are the ones always called on the carpet for our beliefs which are Biblically correct.
I think you have a misunderstanding of Catholics, how can you speak for "most" Catholics saying that they do not read the text in context.
Go back and REREAD what I wrote. You take my coment OUT OF CONTEXT. I explicitly said from my perspective this is how I see it ... you generalized it.
I don't understand that line of thinking.
Of course you don't, you didn't bother to read, think, then reply. Which somehow adds a little more credibility to the point I was making. You fit into the mold that I, again in my experience, have witnessed.
At a Catholic Mass, 3 passages from scripture are read, and we don't need a church official to tell us what the text says.
Fine - you've got the pure text in the mass. The mass isn't a teaching forum per se (if I'm understanding of the mass). It is the opportunity to be in Christ's presence to remember his death and resurrection and worship Him for the salvation He has brought us.
You have Pastors and Elders in your churches who give you guidance on scripture, don't you???
Yes and no. The Spirit of God is the only one that can give guidance to Scripture. pastos and Elders, as history has shown, can and do inject their own 'material' into it. If someone teaches, then the rest judge that one's words by prayerful examination of the Scriptures. The Bereans did it, and Paul taught that 2 or 3 should teach and the rest judge what they say.
after all don't we all believe the same core belief, that Jesus died so that our sins would be forgiven, and that he is our Savour, so lets put it to rest folks.
No, we don't ALL believe this. I have been explicitly told by catholics (yes, plural) that there is NO salvation OUTSIDE of the Roman Catholic Church.
NH & other non-catholics can speak for them selves on this issue.
But, I say again, NO WE DON'T ALL beleive this - you (anon) and I do - not everybody. Which kind of militates against the other claim of unity - how can we be ALL Christians if we don't agree as to what or how one is a Christian?
it seems that we are the ones always called on the carpet for our beliefs which are Biblically correct.
Nah, we get the same thing all the time too. ;)
Anon:
Why doesn't anyone here respond to some of the other blogs that are posted? Like the DaVinci Code for instance, its an attack on all of Christianity yet are Christians sticking together to combat it--no, we're fighting among each other. Sad, very sad.
I see ZERO comments over there. If you are so concerned START the conversation.
There are 3 types of people:
1 - make it happen types
2 - watch it happen types
3 - wonder what happened types
Go over to the posting and 'make it happen'.
With the direction this conversation has gone, I just wanna clarify that my questions weren't asked antagonistically, but because those are the questions that arise in this circumstance.
There's a complaint, but there's no solution offered. There's pulling remarks out of context.
The conversation goes in this direction because there is no clarification ...
If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?
If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?
What does one have to do with the other?
Another point is that the doctrine (as you catholics see it) was requested to be outlined here - it has yet to be done so.
What you will find is that there are many who do not follow what Luther postulated, strictly speaking. You are viewing this doctrine through a preconception which distorts your conclusion, resulting in prejudice (I infer from your posting commencing with the 'if it's so solid...' phrase) about the doctrine and people.
So, please post what the doctrine is and isn't and then we'll see just who follows it and who doesn't.
Also, I hear many catholics defend the changes in practices from early times with the caution that non-catholics aren't taking the historical perspective. That being said it seems to me very apparent that catholicism has never recovered form the Reformation. Those who led the charge back then are gone, most have moved on. So, while I am not catholic, I am not protestant either, nor am I anglican or lutheran. I am Christian - I believe in obedience and faithfulness to the Word of Christ as revealed by the Spirit of Christ to the spiritual follow of Christ. This is not sola Scriptura - as I have had it explained to me.
Again--there are so many other blogs here, and no one responds, why??????
Re. Sola scriptura if you read Jn 21:25...not everything is in the Bible (the Holy spirit for instance)
2 thess. 2:15; 2 tim 2:2; 1 cor 11:2; 1 thess 2:13...Paul speaks of oral tradition and there are a few others, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just quoting from Scripture.
Again--there are so many other blogs here, and no one responds, why??????
I'm responding to posts all over the place. Feel free to join in.
I have joined in a lot of blogs too, others need to join.
Again--there are so many other blogs here, and no one responds, why??????
The following rings true: Life is not general, one who persists in generalities probably isn't seeing the big picture.
I, too have responded to other postings. I have no idea why you insist and persist on this point. Also, it's probably best to get a blog id so we 'know' who you are and where you are posting.
Re. Sola scriptura if you read Jn 21:25...not everything is in the Bible (the Holy spirit for instance)
Precisely why I don't ascribe to the rigidity of Sola Scriptura. Now, there is IN the Bible completeness for LIFE AND FOR GODLINESS (2 Peter 1). The Bible completely contains all man needs to know to receive salvatin and thrive ina relationship with his Creator God in the form of a Father/son relationship.
2 thess. 2:15; 2 tim 2:2; 1 cor 11:2; 1 thess 2:13...Paul speaks of oral tradition and there are a few others,
Oral tradition? or the inception of what would be firmed and confirmed in the WRITING of the NT? Paul traveled around, he didn't send out writings solely from a central base of operation - though it became more like this when he was imprisioned.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just quoting from Scripture.
Citing the references and not going into the context of those references and how they work together and how they fit in to the WHOLE of Scripture is what I was originally refering to.
Take for instance your reference to 1 Cor 11:2 - which you say he talks about oral tradition.
It isn't specific whether it was written or not ... then keeping reading in the chapter we find the 23rd verse explaining where he got the delivered 'stuff' ...
So 1 Cor 11 isn't talking about oral tradition, per se, but the source of the revelation of divine instruction from Christ through Paul to Christians.
1 Cor 11
1 Followers of me become ye, as I also [am] of Christ.
2 ... and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep,
...
23 For I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you ...
So did you take the passage out of context or not? Does it really contain what you say it does? If so show from that chapter that it does. I have shown that I don't see it there at all.
I would like for you to conduct the same dissection of the Word - be diligent to present thyself approved to God -- a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth (Paul's instruction to Timothy).
I have conducted the same dissection and I don't feel I took the passages out of context, I also read Acts 2:42 where it mentions that the early Christians followed apoltolic tradition, and where in Jn 21:25 cites that everything is not in the Bible, we believe in the Holy Spirit and thats not mentioned in the Bible either. Before the Bible was written, man followed the teachings of the church and apostolic tradition.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on matters as this.
Since the Bible was not put under one cover until 397 AD . Prior to the bible who was the authority figure for the early church? Early Christians didn't own a Bible because the printing press wasn't developed until ther 1500's.
Why does jesus state the final authority is the church in Matthew 18: 15-17.
I have conducted the same dissection...
Did you post it?
and I don't feel I took the passages out of context
Facts my friend, not feelings.
, I also read Acts 2:42 where it mentions that the early Christians followed apoltolic tradition,
The text is ambiguous as to tradition ... "and they were continuing stedfastly in the teaching of the apostles, and the fellowship, and the breaking of the bread, and the prayers."
and where in Jn 21:25 cites that everything is not in the Bible,
"And there are also many other things -- as many as Jesus did -- which, if they may be written one by one, not even the world itself I think to have place for the books written. Amen."
So, what does that have to do with your adherance to Scripture and/or Tradition? The verse plainly makes a point that not everything Christ did was recorded. It doesn't state nor imply that Divine Revelation and Divine Authority are contained in Tradition, or in the Scripture for that matter. I can't use this verse to support my stance, nor can you.
I have conducted the same dissection... we believe in the Holy Spirit and thats not mentioned in the Bible either.
Psalm 51:11 - Cast me not forth from Thy presence, And Thy Holy Spirit take not from me.
Psalm 51 contains the very words you say it doesn't. Are you sure you have studied?
Before the Bible was written, man followed the teachings of the church and apostolic tradition.
Do you refer to God revealing Himself to the people as the Bible or do you refer to some compilation bound in a concise fashion as the Bible? The difference is paramount.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on matters as this.
Those who take this stance don't convince me that they are dedicated to the Truth of God. God has One Truth - only One. We can't agree to disagree. Either one or the other or both is wrong - both cannot be right seeing as they disagree.
Are you not dedicated to getting both of us to the Truth?
Look at this as a discussion rather than an argument. The learning is in the discusssion not the arguing.
Why does Jesus state the final authority is the church in Matthew 18: 15-17?
Good Question.
He didn't. The passage there has scope. Tell me the scope of the passage in Matthew 18.
I'm willing to work this specific question through the Word of God if you are.
Since the Bible was not put under one cover until 397 AD .
By 100 AD the NT Canon was pretty much set. The churches were using scripture while still in apostolic times.
I did a post along these lines a while ago. Feel free to check it out.
There are many different demoninations of religions and it is because that we all interprete Scripture in a different way, so who is right and who is wrong, only God is to say, I say as long as we believe that Jesus died for us and is our Saviour thats all that matters. These conversations regarding scripture can go on and on and lead no where.
The New testament was put under one cover in 397AD this was decided by the Council of Carthage. Prior to this, different books of the Bible were not under one cover. For over 300 years the members of the early church were taugh by means of tradition because the Bible as we know it did not exist.
Plus, no where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only authority. 2 Peter 1-20
There are many different demoninations of religions and it is because that we all interprete Scripture in a different way, so who is right and who is wrong, only God is to say, I say as long as we believe that Jesus died for us and is our Saviour thats all that matters. These conversations regarding scripture can go on and on and lead no where.
Pardon my firmness - but this is a lie of the enemy of the Church and our souls.
Scripture is to be OBEYED, not interpreted. If you and I obey, then we will agree - there is no other alternative. We are not to dicipher Scripture - it is plain enough. We are to KNOW Scripture - all of it.
I say as long as we believe that Jesus died for us and is our Saviour thats all that matters.
This makes the Christian pathway a relative one and not based on absolute principles of God. There is no concept of relativism in Christianity, and from what I have seen and heard it hasn't yet been assimilated into the catholic way of doing things either. Are you a catholic? If so, where did you get this general notion?
So I take it you are not willing to go down the pathway of examining the Scriptures to see if what you say is true or what I say is true or to discover we both are disbedient?
...For over 300 years the members of the early church were taugh by means of tradition because the Bible as we know it did not exist.
This is a false conclusion. You assume tradition BECAUSE they didn't have the Bible AS WE HAVE IT TODAY. They had the individual scrolls - we have it compiled. They had no different that we have, and we have no different than they. Content is the same - Spirit to guide is the same.
Plus, no where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only authority. 2 Peter 1-20
If this is a solid way of defending, then there is no such thing as:
1 - Trinity
2 - Pope
3 - Pick any other theological concept that has no literal word pairing in Scripture.
This is a very 'immature' and unlearned approach.
The reason why we lok to the Scriptures to be the authority is that the Scriptures are written (they don't change). Oral tradition changes. If you don't believe it - get a group together tell one person a secret have every one repeat it along the line and have the last person say what they heard outloud. Original Story != Final Story.
Now, take the Scriptures and what is held as tradition. Do they match? In many cases no. So is there authority in tradition, no? Why? Becasue tradition is only practice. Scripture is principles - God's Principles. God didn't reveal Himself through practices of men - He did it through His Word.
For over 300 years the members of the early church were taugh by means of tradition because the Bible as we know it did not exist.
Yes it did. It just wasn't "collected" into one central book.
Since before 100 A.D. the NT canon had been pretty much set. When the Apostles times on earth were coming to a close, much of their efforts switched from verbal to written communications. The Pauline epistles were considered scripture soon after they were written, as were the four canonical Gospels. They were widely circulated. Peter refered to Paul's letters as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Paul considered the Gospel of Luke as scripture (1 Timothy 5:18).
And by the way, at the Synod of Laodicea in 363 A.D., the New Testament canon was decided upon. However, because of human pride, they didn't fully listen to the Holy Spirit and omitted the book of Revelation.
In the absence of the Apostles, the early church had scripture, as do we with the absence of the Apostles. The early church often TRIED to go by oral tradition, but as we see from most of the Epistles, they screwed it up.
Scriptures were written so they were subject to change, same as telling someone a secret as you stated.
So, back to the question if the Bible wasn't put under one cover until 397 AD the authority was the church at that time. Scripture says Mt. 28-19 Jesus states go and TEACH all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. I went down the pathway and examined the Scriptures, my beliefs remain the same.
Lets put these discussions to and end and move on to something else.
I still feel that if we proclaim to be Christians then we all believe in the same basic creed, we should therefore conduct ourselves as Christians and show respect for each other.
The fact that the bible wasn't put under one cover until 363 is immaterial. The early church had scripture from when the epistles and gospels were written.
And if you use Mt 28:19 as "proof" that Sola Scriptura is false, then I submit that you don't know what Sola Scriptura is, and that your argument is a straw man fallacy.
" Lets put these discussions to and end and move on to something else.
I still feel that if we proclaim to be Christians then we all believe in the same basic creed, we should therefore conduct ourselves as Christians and show respect for each other."
~If that's all we ever do, how will we ever sharpen one another? Sharpening requires friction, and I'm sure that word wasn't chosen arbitrarily.
It's an important topic and what kind of Christians would we be if we dropped it before receiving full understanding? Lukewarm comes to mind, and I won't be that. So I ask again:
"~How does the Church find out who it is and where it comes from and what it should look like? By what standard does it verify exactly to which spirit it is listening?"
~and...
"I was just thinking, there are different "denominations" within Catholocism as well, so to know exactly where we're starting from and to be sure we know what each other is taling about, under which denomination does the Church fall as you refer to it here PB, and when you say Sola Scriptura, exactly what is the definition that you are holding?"
~These thignns were brought up, so I'd like to know according to what basis these thigns stand. If I am walking in the dark, I want light. Will I get light or just more "move on - blog elsewhere" leaving me in the dark still?
Scriptures were written so they were subject to change, same as telling someone a secret as you stated.
This is heretical to say the least. What's the point of havng a moving standard? The God who wrote them is immutable, why would he institute that which is relative? He didn't.
Lets put these discussions to and end and move on to something else.
I still feel that if we proclaim to be Christians then we all believe in the same basic creed, we should therefore conduct ourselves as Christians and show respect for each other.
How can you say this when the otehr Anon believes in a relativistic Chrstianity? Just proof that we don't all beleive the same thing. There is One Truth concerning the One True God.
We don't believe in the same things, but we do belive in the same basic thing, which is the most important that Jesus died for us and he is our saviour, I'm not thinking about relativistic christianity, I'm talking about the core beliefs of Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc.
...but we do belive in the same basic thing, which is the most important that Jesus died for us and he is our saviour, I'm not thinking about relativistic christianity, I'm talking about the core beliefs of Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc.
Then how do you reconcile that of these 'companies' some believe no salvation to others who don't conform to a certain way of believing....
Let's use baptism for example, some believe baptism as AN ingredient imperative to salvation, some not.
Let's use outward display of works; again, some believe is absolutely necessary FOR salvation, others believe it is a result OF salvation.
When does man receive his salvation? Some believe at the point of accepting Christ, other's beleive on the far said of our last breath.
Do we all then believe the same basic thing? No! I have been told to expect an eternity in hell for the way I believe ... because I didn't conform to one of the 'companies' you have listed.
This issue is to important to gloss over. And it isn't a case of interpretation ... God has One Truth and One Spirit to deliver it; obey Him and Him only.
We'll find out the answers to these questions and others when we meet the Lord.
but we do belive in the same basic thing, which is the most important that Jesus died for us and he is our saviour,
+
We'll find out the answers to these questions [what constitutes salvation] and others when we meet the Lord.
=
Why ~Mark and I don't want to see this issue laid to rest. We wouldn't want you to be misled regarding salvation, do you not care concerning us?
Post a Comment