How can a sola scriptura proponent know that all revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The underlined words is key for SS advocates. As a result,my question to SS advocates is always simple:

Tell me what Bible Abraham used,if SS is the mother of all doctrines?
I would imagine that SS advocates would claim that sola scriptura started with Jesus or the apostles, but, for SS to be embraced, SS must be found in the bible, or at least shown, by SS advocates, that Jesus or His apostles embraced the practice of SS, but of course, there is no evidence of either.
 
JonNC:
First, Alan, SS is a practice, not a doctrine (see above). Perhaps, regarding authority, there was a need to use scripture as the final norm, since those communions that claim Tradition and scripture came to schism and disagreement.
Blessings Jon!

Jon quick question? I understand that SS is a practice,but do you believe for many it has become a doctrine,by default?

God Bless my friend.
 
I would imagine that SS advocates would claim that sola scriptura started with Jesus or the apostles, but, for SS to be embraced, SS must be found in the bible, or at least shown that Jesus or His apostles embraced the practice of SS, but of course, there is no evidence of either.
Yes,but SS advocates also have the OT in the Bibles,so does it mean the OT is excluded from SS? Hence,if the OT is included, it begs the question: What Bible did Abraham use?
 
It did not end with the last Apostle. It ended with Joseph Smith Jr…Or was it Ellen G. White? Nope, wait, I got it. Brother Stare! Just kidding. But this is a very good point Joe. Without a Guiding Authority, such as the RCC has. How would we know? Peace 🙂
LOL…
 
I would imagine that SS advocates would claim that sola scriptura started with Jesus or the apostles, but, for SS to be embraced, SS must be found in the bible, or at least shown, by SS advocates, that Jesus or His apostles embraced the practice of SS, but of course, there is no evidence of either.
Sola Scriptura would be started after the last Apostle wrote his book and died, IIRC. However one more thing that Catholics forum peeps errantly say is that it must be found in Scripture, that is not true and Christians who use Sola Scriptura do not expect it to be in there.
Sola scriptura is one of the five solas, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation.The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is viewed as subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church.
Sola scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice
Source
 
anything other than scripture is trusting man,even satan says hes a Christian when it comes time to decieve the ignorant in scripture plain and simple,DONT TRUST ANY MAN GIVING A DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES
 
I would imagine that SS advocates would claim that sola scriptura started with Jesus or the apostles, but, for SS to be embraced, SS must be found in the bible, or at least shown, by SS advocates, that Jesus or His apostles embraced the practice of SS, but of course, there is no evidence of either.
what bible are you reading brother,of course theres evidence of them using SS,didnt Jesus us it when he was tempted in the desert or anytime he said It is written,didnt the apostles use SS to prove Jesus was the messiah,didnt John the Baptist use it,I guess not
 
Yes,but SS advocates also have the OT in the Bibles,so does it mean the OT is excluded from SS? Hence,if the OT is included, it begs the question: What Bible did Abraham use?
Abraham had God himself to talk to,he didnt need a bible
 
Could you expound? Are you suggesting that the EOC and CC schism that occurred in the 11th century would not have occurred if the one CC, prior to the schism, would have deferred to scripture alone as the final norm??? :confused:

Disputed but not refuted. Sadly, most non-Catholics would not agree with you.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” To summarize, in Catholic theology Purgatory is a place that a Christian’s soul goes to after death to be cleansed of the sins that had not been fully satisfied during life. Is this doctrine of Purgatory in agreement with the Bible? Absolutely not!

Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins (Romans 5:8). Isaiah 53:5 declares, “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” Jesus suffered for our sins so that we could be delivered from suffering. To say that we must also suffer for our sins is to say that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient. To say that we must atone for our sins by cleansing in Purgatory is to deny the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (1 John 2:2). The idea that we have to suffer for our sins after death is contrary to everything the Bible says about salvation.

The primary Scriptural passage Catholics point to for evidence of Purgatory is 1 Corinthians 3:15, which says, “If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” The passage (1 Corinthians 3:12-15) is using an illustration of things going through fire as a description of believers’ works being judged. If our works are of good quality “gold, sliver, costly stones,” they will pass through the fire unharmed, and we will be rewarded for them. If our works are of poor quality “wood, hay, and straw,” they will be consumed by the fire, and there will be no reward. The passage does not say that believers pass through the fire, but rather that a believer’s works pass through the fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the believer “escaping through the flames,” not “being cleansed by the flames.”

Purgatory, like many other Catholic dogmas, is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Catholics view the Mass / Eucharist as a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice because they fail to understand that Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient (Hebrews 7:27). Catholics view meritorious works as contributing to salvation due to a failure to recognize that Jesus’ sacrificial payment has no need of additional “contribution” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Similarly, Purgatory is understood by Catholics as a place of cleansing in preparation for heaven because they do not recognize that because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we are already cleansed, declared righteous, forgiven, redeemed, reconciled, and sanctified.

The very idea of Purgatory and the doctrines that are often attached to it (prayer for the dead, indulgences, meritorious works on behalf of the dead, etc.) all fail to recognize that Jesus’ death was sufficient to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins. Jesus, who was God incarnate (John 1:1,14), paid an infinite price for our sin. Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). To limit Jesus’ sacrifice to atoning for original sin, or sins committed before salvation, is an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If we must in any sense pay for, atone for, or suffer because of our sins – that indicates Jesus’ death was not a perfect, complete, and sufficient sacrifice.

For believers, after death is to be “away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23). Notice that this does not say “away from the body, in Purgatory with the cleansing fire.” No, because of the perfection, completion, and sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice, we are immediately in the Lord’s presence after death, fully cleansed, free from sin, glorified, perfected, and ultimately sanctified.

Why? Most non-Catholics would say: By who’s authority do they teach, interpret scripture and administer the sacraments?

I don’t really see a big difference between the church to which you belong and the church to which I belong, when it comes to authority, which of course stems from the teaching office of the church, rather than the members of the church via private interpretation.

Purgatory is one example. Some of the most obvious verses about purgatory appear in the Deutero books, which, to my surprise as a former non-Catholic, were always part of the Bible, and ML threw out the Deutero books and then insisted that purgatory was not in the Bible.
 
=joe370;7590342]
Jon the practice of holding all teachings and teachers accountable to scripture alone as the Christians ultimate yardstick, (to me anyway) - is the advancement of individual interpretation of each and every teacher, regardless of church affiliation, and no one church has the right to arbitrate as the Catholic church did early on, via council. The benchmark for determining doctrinal truth has shifted from the church (pre-reformation) - via council, regarding sacred scripture and sacred tradition, to the bible (post reformation, including certain traditions depending on the church) - via individual interpretation of either the church magisters, or the church member, if said member does not agree with the church magister(s). Everyone deferring to scripture alone as the Christians final authority for settling matters such as doctrinal disputes, is not scriptural or workable, even if it does not reject tradition, which of course is not the case for all SS proponents.
Hi Joe,
And I would view SS as a protection against individual interpretation, in the sense that hermeneutics is the responsibility of the Church. My interpretation of scripture, regarding doctrine, means nothing, if I intend to remain within the communion to which I belong. If I say that, based on my interpretation, that the Eucharist is only symbolic, or infant baptism is not salvific, or confession to a priest for absolution is wrong, then I am no longer a Lutheran, as the Lutheran confessions, as a right relection of scripture, teaches these things. Even greater so is this application to a Lutheran pastor. It is the Church that practices hermeneutics, not me.
Now, if you want to say that the Lutheran Confessions are “presonal interpretation”, based on the Catholic model, then I could say that the Catholic teaching regarding the jurisdiction of the Pope is, based on that of most other communions not in communion with Rome, even those who practice Tradition and scripture.
The question, then becomes, how do we reconcile these viewpoints to achieve unity.
The Bible as the final norm would have been impossible for the first 300 years of Christianity; the Bible as the Christians final norm is not taught in the Bible; the Bible as the Christians final norm, was not taught by the Apostles; the Bible as the Christians final norm, was not the practice of the early church; the practice of the early church, (the same church that codified the Bible and settled doctrinal disputes) - was deference to the church, which, according to sacred scripture, is being forever guided by the holy spirit to all truth.
Agreed. So, which Church from those early councils has that authority?
If the Bible, as the Christians final norm (as opposed to the church’s final norm, regardless of denomination) - for resolving doctrinal disputes, is to be embraced today, then it only stands to reason that the Bible, as the Christians final norm for resolving doctrinal disputes, would have been the practice of the church during the apostolic age, and the post apostolic age - agreed?
There was no need, as the Church was unified, other than those the united Church, in council, said were wrong. You will not, for example, get an argument from Lutherans regarding the first 7 councils as rightly reflecting scripture.

Jon
 
=joe370;7590411]Could you expound? Are you suggesting that the EOC and CC schism that occurred in the 11th century would not have occurred if the one CC, prior to the schism, would have deferred to scripture alone as the final norm??? :confused:
Actually, the opposite. Has they continued to maintain unity through Tradition and scripture, I would see no need for SS. But as I said above, the early Church, through the councils, DID rightly reflect scripture.
Disputed but not refuted. Sadly, most non-Catholics would not agree with you.
The reason I would be Catholic or Orthodox, or traditional Anglican long before anabaptist or Reformed based protestant.
Why? Most non-Catholics would say: By who’s authority do they teach, interpret scripture and administer the sacraments?
My first response is by the same authority that any communion teaches from.
I don’t really see a big difference between the church to which you belong and the church to which I belong, when it comes to authority, which of course stems from the teaching office of the church, rather than the members of the church via private interpretation.
I’m not sure what you mean here, Joe.
Purgatory is one example. Some of the most obvious verses about purgatory appear in the Deutero books, which, to my surprise as a former non-Catholic, were always part of the Bible, and ML threw out the Deutero books and then insisted that purgatory was not in the Bible.
So, if you would, please give examples of these verses.

Jon
 
Quote:
JonNC:
First, Alan, SS is a practice, not a doctrine (see above). Perhaps, regarding authority, there was a need to use scripture as the final norm, since those communions that claim Tradition and scripture came to schism and disagreement.
Blessings Jon!

Jon quick question? I understand that SS is a practice,but do you believe for many it has become a doctrine,by default?

God Bless my friend.
 
Blessings Jon!

Jon quick question? I understand that SS is a practice,but do you believe for many it has become a doctrine,by default?

God Bless my friend.
Oh, yes, absolutely. Some (even some Lutherans) speak of it as doctrine. I have a number of problems when it is pursued in that way.

Jon
 
Oh, yes, absolutely. Some (even some Lutherans) speak of it as doctrine. I have a number of problems when it is pursued in that way.

Jon
Jon,if you do not mind me asking? Exactly what number of problems do you have against those brethen who view it as doctrine?
 
Hey jahluver…
what bible are you reading brother,of course theres evidence of them using SS,didnt Jesus us it when he was tempted in the desert or anytime he said It is written,didnt the apostles use SS to prove Jesus was the messiah,didnt John the Baptist use it,I guess not
Yup, Jesus referenced the old testament. The OT is not “scripture alone” by itself. Sola scriptura as the Christians one and only authority was not the “practice” of Jesus or His apostles. The 27 books of the NT didn’t even exist when Jesus walked the earth.
 
Jon,if you do not mind me asking? Exactly what number of problems do you have against those brethen who view it as doctrine?
First on my list: it is difficult to explicitly derive SS from scripture, as it is a post-apostolic era practice. And doctrine, ISTM, has to do with those beliefs necessary for salvation. I could hardly bring myself to believe that Catholics or Orthodox, by not practicing it, are in jeopardy of losing their salvation because of it.

Jon
 
First on my list: it is difficult to explicitly derive SS from scripture, as it is a post-apostolic era practice. And doctrine, ISTM, has to do with those beliefs necessary for salvation. I could hardly bring myself to believe that Catholics or Orthodox, by not practicing it, are in jeopardy of losing their salvation because of it.

Jon
Nicely said Jon. I totally agree with everything you stated, especially this comment:

as it is a post-apostolic era practice

To be honest, I refrain from staunch SS advocates. I have learned that most will not listen or willing to accept the historical evidence against them. 🤷
 
Hey Jon…
And I would view SS as a protection against individual interpretation, in the sense that hermeneutics is the responsibility of the Church. My interpretation of scripture, regarding doctrine, means nothing, if I intend to remain within the communion to which I belong. If I say that, based on my interpretation, that the Eucharist is only symbolic, or infant baptism is not salvific, or confession to a priest for absolution is wrong, then I am no longer a Lutheran, as the Lutheran confessions, as a right relection of scripture, teaches these things. Even greater so is this application to a Lutheran pastor. It is the Church that practices hermeneutics, not me.
Now, if you want to say that the Lutheran Confessions are “presonal interpretation”, based on the Catholic model, then I could say that the Catholic teaching regarding the jurisdiction of the Pope is, based on that of most other communions not in communion with Rome, even those who practice Tradition and scripture.
The question, then becomes, how do we reconcile these viewpoints to achieve unity.
Good question, considering the fact that no one church or individual, according to the practice of SS, (not including your definition of SS) - has any authority over another church or individual. SS, removes the authority of the church which means there is no accountability. If a person doesn’t agree with what his or her church teaches they can simply up and leave and join another church, or better yet, start their own church, basing their teachings on their interpretation of their bible. :eek: All deference is to the Bible, as the Christians one and only authority. I wonder what Jesus would have to say on the matter?
The Bible as the final norm would have been impossible for the first 300 years of Christianity; the Bible as the Christians final norm is not taught in the Bible; the Bible as the Christians final norm, was not taught by the Apostles; the Bible as the Christians final norm, was not the practice of the early church; the practice of the early church, (the same church that codified the Bible and settled doctrinal disputes) - was deference to the church, which, according to sacred scripture, is being forever guided by the holy spirit to all truth.
Agreed. So, which Church from those early councils has that authority?
I guess that is up to each individual to decide. To me, it’s simple: find the church that was founded by Jesus Christ, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost and then adhere to what Martin Luther said:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
If the Bible, as the Christians final norm (as opposed to the church’s final norm, regardless of denomination) - for resolving doctrinal disputes, is to be embraced today, then it only stands to reason that the Bible, as the Christians final norm for resolving doctrinal disputes, would have been the practice of the church during the apostolic age, and the post apostolic age - agreed?
There was no need, as the Church was unified, other than those the united Church, in council, said were wrong. You will not, for example, get an argument from Lutherans regarding the first 7 councils as rightly reflecting scripture.
Are you suggesting that, since the church is no longer one and united, the Bible, as the Christians final norm is now necessary for resolving doctrinal disputes? I’m not following you, if in fact that is what you are suggesting? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top