Do you think sola scriptura is practical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
" I’m relying on the promises of Christ."
I am too…I have been reading them and studying them for almost 40 years since I had a radical conversion experience with Jesus…I’ll check with you on the other side to see where we were right or wrong…peace to you…

I am confident in that Christ will complete the work He started in me…
 
This doesn’t bolster the case for Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is our final authority).
Nor does it make Sola Scriptura practical because, as I stated before – it is a self-refuting position.

Jesus gave the Church the Final Authority on matters concerning the Body of Christ:
Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-2****3.
We could argue Matt 16 forever. I’d argue the rock is his profession of faith that He’s the Christ. You’d argue that it’s the basis for apostolic succession. In either case we would say it’s scriptural for it’s derived from scripture.

Matthew 18:15-18 basically reiterates Lev 19:17. In either casr it’s scriptural.

In John 16 and 20, lets approach it this way. The gospel message taught by the apostles and recorded by the scribes led to the canon. Paul laid out what the gospel is in Romans and 1 Corinthians I believe. Why was Paul made an apostle? 1 Cor 1:17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. This was the mission of the apostles. Paul warned the Galatians about false gospels in Galatians

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Tradition is fine as long as it is scriptural.
 
We could argue Matt 16 forever. I’d argue the rock is his profession of faith that He’s the Christ. You’d argue that it’s the basis for apostolic succession. In either case we would say it’s scriptural for it’s derived from scripture.

Matthew 18:15-18 basically reiterates Lev 19:17. In either casr it’s scriptural.

In John 16 and 20, lets approach it this way. The gospel message taught by the apostles and recorded by the scribes led to the canon. Paul laid out what the gospel is in Romans and 1 Corinthians I believe. Why was Paul made an apostle? 1 Cor 1:17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. This was the mission of the apostles. Paul warned the Galatians about false gospels in Galatians

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Tradition is fine as long as it is scriptural.
As long as it’s apostolic, sort of like the bible it’s self is a tradition which is apostolic. That’s what Paul is getting at, Apostolic tradition & teaching is what we are to listen to, and of course the only “Angles” which would teach something other than Apostolic teachings are fallen angels.

That’s sort of my problem with Sola Scriptura. It’s contra-Apostolic teaching, contra-bibilical, contra-Christianity, or at least contra-Christianity for 1,600 years before the protestant “reformers” on their own authority started making up all sorts of new traditions and teachings.
 
That’s sort of my problem with Sola Scriptura. It’s contra-Apostolic teaching, contra-bibilical, contra-Christianity, or at least contra-Christianity for 1,600 years before the protestant “reformers” on their own authority started making up all sorts of new traditions and teachings.
“Apostolic tradition & teaching is what we are to listen to.” What about the traditions and teachings that come after the original apostles ?
Just curious. how is it contra apostolic when we believe what the original apostles taught…It’s the stuff was added later that scares me…Just for instance I was in a they where they said “behold you mother” meaning that Mary is my mother…I brought the scripture we Jesus clearly is speaking directly to John the beloved saying "behold your mother’’…According to scripture, she is my sister…She is blessed above women…I have no problem honoring her that way…I also read how the Orthodox separated and are blamed for the schism…Yet they operate more closely to what I read in scripture…Last question do you think something adopted and carried our for a long time proves it’s correctness…
 
As long as it’s apostolic, sort of like the bible it’s self is a tradition which is apostolic. That’s what Paul is getting at, Apostolic tradition & teaching is what we are to listen to, and of course the only “Angles” which would teach something other than Apostolic teachings are fallen angels.

That’s sort of my problem with Sola Scriptura. It’s contra-Apostolic teaching, contra-bibilical, contra-Christianity, or at least contra-Christianity for 1,600 years before the protestant “reformers” on their own authority started making up all sorts of new traditions and teachings.
I think tradition needs to be differentiated between written (ie. scriptural) or of man. We can agree that Jesus opposed the traditions of man. There are numerous passages. One such passage is Mark 7:7-9
Code:
 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’b 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”  9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observec your own traditions.
But the written traditions [oral in the days of the apostles and still today (ie gospels and epistles)] are scriptural. These written traditions conform to sola scriptura for they are scriptural based. These would be one in the same. If the tradition is found in the Bible, then it’s scriptural. If it isn’t, then it’s of man.
 
We could argue Matt 16 forever. I’d argue the rock is his profession of faith that He’s the Christ. You’d argue that it’s the basis for apostolic succession. In either case we would say it’s scriptural for it’s derived from scripture.
No we wouldn’t.
You’d argue your case and you’d be wrong because you fail to understand the meaning of the text.

Understand that Jesus didn’t speak Greek to his Apostles - he spoke Aramaic.
He didn’t say, "You are Petros and on this Petra I will build my church."


**Jesus says - in Aramaic - “You are kepha (massive rock) and upon this kepha (massive rock) I will build my church.” **
It is transliterated into Greek using the masculine Petros because using the feminine Petra to describe a man would be silly.
Matthew 18:15-18 basically reiterates Lev 19:17. In either casr it’s scriptural.
Wrong.
Either that or you have absolutely no understanding of the Scriptures.
Lev 19:17 states:

"You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him."
**Whereas this passage is about not falling into sin ****Matt. 18:15-18 speaks about what to do if somebody sins against you. He gives the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins.
And in the end - he tells them that the Church has the final say - the final authority - not the Scriptures. **
In John 16 and 20, lets approach it this way. The gospel message taught by the apostles and recorded by the scribes led to the canon. Paul laid out what the gospel is in Romans and 1 Corinthians I believe. Why was Paul made an apostle? 1 Cor 1:17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. This was the mission of the apostles. Paul warned the Galatians about false gospels in Galatians

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Tradition is fine as long as it is scriptural.
Huh???
**You can approach it any way you want (and it appears that you are) but if you’re not taking Jesus at his word - you’re just plain wrong.

In John 16:12-15, Jesus is telling the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into ALL truth and will take from what is Jesus’ and declare it to the Church.

In John 20:21-23 - he is again giving the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins. He tells them that what they forgive and retain will be so in heaven as on earth.
 
" I’m relying on the promises of Christ."
I am too…I have been reading them and studying them for almost 40 years since I had a radical conversion experience with Jesus…I’ll check with you on the other side to see where we were right or wrong…peace to you…

I am confident in that Christ will complete the work He started in me…
**I, too pray that Jesus completes the work he started in you. But - if you don’t cooperate with his grace, it cannot happen.
**
His free gift of grace must be met with our cooperation (Romans 8:28, 2 Corinthians 6:1, 1 Corinthians 3:9).
 
No we wouldn’t.
You’d argue your case and you’d be wrong because you fail to understand the meaning of the text.

Understand that Jesus didn’t speak Greek to his Apostles - he spoke Aramaic.
He didn’t say, "You are Petros and on this Petra I will build my church."

Jesus says - in Aramaic - “You are kepha (massive rock) and upon this kepha (massive rock) I will build my church.”
It is transliterated into Greek using the masculine Petros because using the feminine Petra to describe a man would be silly.

Wrong.
Either that or you have absolutely no understanding of the Scriptures.
Lev 19:17 states:
"You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him."
**Whereas this passage is about not falling into sin **Matt. 18:15-18 speaks about what to do if somebody sins against you. He gives the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins.
And in the end - he tells them that the Church has the final say - the final authority - not the Scriptures.

Huh???
You can approach it any way you want *(and it appears that you are) *but if you’re not taking Jesus at his word - you’re just plain wrong.

In John 16:12-15, Jesus is telling the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into ALL truth and will take from what is Jesus’ and declare it to the Church.

In John 20:21-23 - he is again giving the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins. He tells them that what they forgive and retain will be so in heaven as on earth.
Douay-Rheims John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

The Holy Spirit does this for all who repent and accept Christ.

Matt 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
John 20:23 whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The power of binding and loosing was shared Mt 18:18 Jn 20:23 by the other disciples. That it did not involve the determination of the eternal destiny of souls is clear from Rev 1:18. The keys of death and the place of departed spirits are held by Christ alone.

Rev 1:18 And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.
Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth:

As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these “keys,” on the day of Pentecost, he first “opened the door of faith” to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles.

A metaphor taken from stewards who carry the keys: and here is set forth the power of the ministers of the word, as Isa 22:22 says, and that power is common to all ministers, as Mt 18:18 says, and therefore the ministry of the gospel may rightly be called the key of the kingdom of heaven. The gospel itself could be considered the key.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The ability to forgive sins is in a declaritive sense as relating to the Great Commision. Only Christ has the ability to forgive sins.

Mat 16 we’ll disagree. Yes they spoke Aramaic, but the gospel was written in Greek. It would not be silly to describe Peter in such manor. Jesus spoke figuratively frequently. Christ is the chief cornerstoner.
 
Douay-Rheims John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.The Holy Spirit does this for all who repent and accept Christ.
WRONG**.**
Jesus told this ONLY his Apostles at the Last Supper. The same goes for Matt. 16:15-19 and 18:15-18.
When he spoke to everybody, he spoke in more
general
terms – such as the Sermon on the Mount.
 
Matt 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
John 20:23 whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
The power of binding and loosing was shared Mt 18:18 Jn 20:23 by the other disciples. That it did not involve the determination of the eternal destiny of souls is clear from Rev 1:18. The keys of death and the place of departed spirits are held by Christ alone.
Rev 1:18 And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.
Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth:
As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these “keys,” on the day of Pentecost, he first “opened the door of faith” to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles.
A metaphor taken from stewards who carry the keys: and here is set forth the power of the ministers of the word, as Isa 22:22 says, and that power is common to all ministers, as Mt 18:18 says, and therefore the ministry of the gospel may rightly be called the key of the kingdom of heaven. The gospel itself could be considered the key.
The ability to forgive sins is in a declaritive sense as relating to the Great Commision. Only Christ has the ability to forgive sins.
Hogwash**.**
Jesus did not give the power to forgive sins to all believers. Your understanding of Scripture is quite flawed in that you seem to think that Jesus spoke in general terms all the time.

Consider Matt. 16:15-19 and John 21:15-18. He was speaking to Peter alone and giving him instructions. Luke 22:31-32, Jesus says:
"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that
your
* (singular)****** own faith may not fail; and once****** you****** (singular) have turned back, you****** (singular) ******must strengthen your (singular) ******brothers."

He was speaking directly** to Peter ALONE** – not to anybody else.
**
As for the** Keys**** – he gave them to Peter. You quote Revelation as if Jesus had no power to hand them to his earthly representative. God can do anything he wants – and DOES. He can make exceptions anytime he wants and DOES.**
Consider Heb. 9:27, where it says, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”** In the OT - God made exceptions for Enoch and Elijah.**
**Don’t **be so quick as to put restrictions on God’s will.
 
Mat 16 we’ll disagree. Yes they spoke Aramaic, but the gospel was written in Greek. It would not be silly to describe Peter in such manor. Jesus spoke figuratively frequently. Christ is the chief cornerstoner.
Well, then this is simply a** lack**** of faith on your part.**
You can’t argue with the** Aramaic****, which is what Jesus spoke. The Greek had NO masculine for “Rock” and was therefore transliterated in to “Petros”.**
At this point – your simply in denial.
 
I think tradition needs to be differentiated between written (ie. scriptural) or of man. We can agree that Jesus opposed the traditions of man. There are numerous passages. One such passage is Mark 7:7-9
Code:
 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’b 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”  9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observec your own traditions.
But the written traditions [oral in the days of the apostles and still today (ie gospels and epistles)] are scriptural. These written traditions conform to sola scriptura for they are scriptural based. These would be one in the same. If the tradition is found in the Bible, then it’s scriptural. If it isn’t, then it’s of man.
You mean of The Apostles of Christ… You know, the 12 men who Jesus taugh Personally (well 11, Paul wasn’t taught by Christ directly but he was most certainly chosen by Christ to replace St. Steven).

Or are you seriously trying to suggest that The Apostles would institute a tradition not of Christ? Speaking of biblical traditions:
14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle
 
You mean of The Apostles of Christ… You know, the 12 men who Jesus taugh Personally (well 11, Paul wasn’t taught by Christ directly but he was most certainly chosen by Christ to replace St. Steven).

Or are you seriously trying to suggest that The Apostles would institute a tradition not of Christ? Speaking of biblical traditions:
I sorta think that Damascus road experience taught him some about Jesus 😉

I trust in the traditions that appeared in the sacred scriptures…It’s the ones that popped up later that scare me…
 
I sorta think that Damascus road experience taught him some about Jesus 😉

I trust in the traditions that appeared in the sacred scriptures…It’s the ones that popped up later that scare me…
The bible is, in fact, a part of tradition. It was meant to complete oral tradition, this is why Paul instructs us to hold fast to both spoken and written tradition. Nothing in oral tradition, nor written tradition contradicts one an other.
 
The bible is, in fact, a part of tradition. It was meant to complete oral tradition, this is why Paul instructs us to hold fast to both spoken and written tradition. Nothing in oral tradition, nor written tradition contradicts one an other.
Yes and we agree that what was written and oral is now all written in the sacred scriptures…Its the oral and written that come after the original apostles is what scares me…
 
Yes and we agree that what was written and oral is now all written in the sacred scriptures…Its the oral and written that come after the original apostles is what scares me…
We do not agree that the totality of Apostolic teaching was incorporated into Holy Scripture. Indeed, passages of Holy Scripture deny that it was.

And regarding what came after, when it comes to what was invented during the Protestant Reformation by those who broke with the Church, I completely agree.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Yes and we agree that what was written and oral is now all written in the sacred scriptures…Its the oral and written that come after the original apostles is what scares me…
Which ones? Specifically list them. The Catholic Church, for instance teaches Apostolic tradition and Sacred Scripture combined as the full deposit of faith. Exactly as is directed in the bible, in that passage I already quoted.

There is such thing as small t traditions, which do not negate the word of God, but rather immerse you in the word of God which we do observe. These are rules for fasting, advent candals. These are nice little things we do, that immerse you in the faith, but can change over time as necessary. The main rule with these traditions, is that they can not contradict either Apostolic Tradition, or Sacred Scripture. If it does, then it is wholly invalid, condemed and should not be observed. If it does not, but rather brings you to Christ, then it’s fine. Such an example in the Proestant world is Wednessday night prayer meetings. This isn’t in the bible, should it be tossed out as being evil? No, it’s a terrific tradition, by all means keep doing it, keep participating because it brings you closer to God. Same deal with the small ‘t’ traditions I just talked about.

Big ‘T’ traditions are something else. Examples of these are The Bible, and the fact that the bible is the inerrant word of God. The Trinity, which no one about. These are some pretty critical, base things that we don’t even argue about, every one accepts and comes to us fully from tradition.

I’ll close by quoting some of the Apostolic fathers for you. I’ve decided to do this because I did a bit of googling, and I’ve notice some websites erroneously suggesting that the Apostolic Fathers were basically a bunch of Southern Baptist. So I just want to give you a flavor of what it is exactly, they were like.

Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition
Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
 
I sorta think that Damascus road experience taught him some about Jesus 😉

I trust in the traditions that appeared in the sacred scriptures…It’s the ones that popped up later that scare me…
It’s interesting that you brought up the Road to Damascus.
What happened there is very telling.
In Acts 9:4-5, after Saul is knocked to the ground, he sees Jesus, who asks him:

**"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" **
Saul replies with: "Who are you, sir?"
then Jesus gives him the answer: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

Was Saul persecuting Jesus? I though he was persecuting the Church.
Jesus, in asking Saul this question, equates his very self with his Church. The same Church he gave complete and total Authority to in Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15 and 20:21-23.


This is who he gave final Authority to - not the Scriptures themselves.
 
No, the Catholic church has been around longer than the New Testament and the Bible as we know it today. Hope it helps!🙂
 
Something just struck me on the impracticability of Sola Scriptura.

It seems that some, if not many, groups that espouse this doctrine also believe in women ministers/clergy.

Where do they get that from? And if it is not scriptural where are the other groups stating this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top