If Scripture Alone is sufficient, why do you need a "pastor"?

[2ndGen]

If Scripture Alone is sufficient for personal revelation,
why do you need the following:

• church building
• fellowship
• pastor
• Sunday school
• supporting texts (concordances, Encyclopedias, commentaries, etc…)
• bible studies

According to “Sola Scripturaists”, the bible is supposed to be enough by itself and needs no interpretor.

It can just be read, then The Holy Spirit will guide one into understanding it based on the purity of one’s heart.

If this were so, then there’d be no need for anyone to “pastor” the believers since they could learn revelation on their own, right?

 

[suupah]

If Scripture Alone is sufficient for personal revelation,
why do you need the following:

• church building
• fellowship
• pastor
• Sunday school
• supporting texts (concordances, Encyclopedias, commentaries, etc…)
• bible studies

According to “Sola Scripturaists”, the bible is supposed to be enough by itself and needs no interpretor.

It can just be read, then The Holy Spirit will guide one into understanding it based on the purity of one’s heart.

If this were so, then there’d be no need for anyone to “pastor” the believers since they could learn revelation on their own, right?

You don’t need any of that stuff. you only need the word of God.

 

[2ndGen]

You don’t need any of that stuff. you only need the word of God.

Well, isn’t it then being hypocritical to go to a “man” to learn The Word of God if one believes that one doesn’t need the interpretation of another man to understand scripture?

 

[jmcrae]

You don’t need any of that stuff. you only need the word of God.

So, why are there Protestant churches then? And what are they spending your hard-earned tithes on, if they don’t deliver anything that you actually need?

 

[2ndGen]

So, why are there Protestant churches then? And what are they spending your hard-earned tithes on, if they don’t deliver anything that you actually need?

Come on now…let’s stick to the theological issue here!

LOL!

The question remains, if Scripture is sufficient for all personal revelation, why do they need a “pastor”?​

pas·tor

1. A Christian minister or priest having spiritual charge over a congregation or other group.
2. A layperson having spiritual charge over a person or group.
3. A shepherd.

Do they need a “minister”?

And if so, to “minister” what to them?

They definately reject the Priesthood.

Does their pastor have “spiritual charge” over the group (like The Pope has over us)?

Can a layperson have spiritual charge over a person or group?

Of course they are of Jesus’ flock, but if scripture is sufficient, why do they need to be sheharded?

 

[SyCarl]

If Scripture Alone is sufficient for personal revelation,
why do you need the following:

• church building
• fellowship
• pastor
• Sunday school
• supporting texts (concordances, Encyclopedias, commentaries, etc…)
• bible studies

According to “Sola Scripturaists”, the bible is supposed to be enough by itself and needs no interpretor.

It can just be read, then The Holy Spirit will guide one into understanding it based on the purity of one’s heart.

If this were so, then there’d be no need for anyone to “pastor” the believers since they could learn revelation on their own, right?

I will let Cyril of Jerusalem and Thomas Aquinas answer.

For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema Galatians 1:8-9 . So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. .- .-Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Objection 1. It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written (Deuteronomy 4:2): “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it.” Therefore it was unlawful to make a symbol as a rule of faith, after the Holy Writ had once been published.

Reply to Objection 1. The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.-Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Second Part, Part Two, Question 1, Article 9)
newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm

Or in other words, just because you can learn everything you need from the Bible doesn’t mean that you need to or can’t look for help.

We are also told in Scripture not to forsake corporate worship.

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
(Hebrews 10:23-25 NASB)

And finally there is the need for Christian fellowship.

 

[Cat]

Interestingly, there is a trend among Protestants to abandon “church” and go it alone, or in small “home churches” or “family churches” where Dad is the “pastor.”

So Protestants are asking themselves the same question as the OP.

 

[suupah]

You don’t need any of that stuff. you only need the word of God.

Of course the word of God says you need that stuff! I like the response of evangelicals -“NO,NO, NO! You don’t need any of that stuff. All you need is Jesus!”

 

[2ndGen]

Interestingly, there is a trend among Protestants to abandon “church” and go it alone, or in small “home churches” or “family churches” where Dad is the “pastor.”

So Protestants are asking themselves the same question as the OP.

First came the Reformers,
who today have Churches that “look” and “act” Catholic anyway.

Then came their offspring, then their offspring, then the Bible Churches, then the unitarians, then the non-denominationals…

…they keep whittling it down until eventually, they’ll have nothing but The Holy Bible.

And if it got to that point, that’d be great…they’d have to confront the truth with no on misindoctrinating them.

They’d have to read the whole Bible.

No guarentee that they would, but imagine “if”.

I was hoping this thread would draw out the Protestants to explain “why” have anything other than The Bible if it’s all they need?

 

[SyCarl]

Although John Chrysostom would seem to agree that many of these things are not necessary.

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. -John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

 

[alessandro]

Your position rests on the argument of Sola Scriptura.

Who said that sola scriptura is correct?

 

[jmcrae]

Although John Chrysostom would seem to agree that many of these things are not necessary.

Actually, he was giving them heck for focusing on the wrong thing. He wasn’t saying they didn’t need to come to worship; he was saying that if they come to worship, and the homilist isn’t very good, they should not be discouraged because of that, since they can hear the Scriptures for themselves when they come to worship, and they can still worship God, even without a good homilist.

 

[bengal_fan]

i really wish people would learn what martin luther meant by sola scriptura before spouting off on these forums.

he meant something much closer to prima scriptura.

furthermore, most of those things mentioned in the OP are also mentioned in some form or another in the scripture. therefore, scripture is enough to come up with most of your list. the others, well, it comes back to what do protestants mean by scripture alone. they mean that all that is necessary for salvation is contained within scripture. i don’t think you would ever meet a protestant who would say sunday school or church building is necessary for salvation.

 

[2ndGen]

i really wish people would learn what martin luther meant by sola scriptura before spouting off on these forums.

he meant something much closer to prima scriptura.

furthermore, most of those things mentioned in the OP are also mentioned in some form or another in the scripture. therefore, scripture is enough to come up with most of your list. the others, well, it comes back to what do protestants mean by scripture alone. they mean that all that is necessary for salvation is contained within scripture. i don’t think you would ever meet a protestant who would say sunday school or church building is necessary for salvation.

By all means then BFan…explain.

And thank you.

Yes, the things I mentioned “are” in Scripture.
Yet, they are all instuments in worship.

Now, what is the “pastor’s” job
(I am assuming that you are a Protestant)
in your definition of the word pastor?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If Scripture Alone is sufficient for personal revelation,
why do you need the following:

• church building
• fellowship
• pastor
• Sunday school
• supporting texts (concordances, Encyclopedias, commentaries, etc…)
• bible studies

According to “Sola Scripturaists”, the bible is supposed to be enough by itself and needs no interpretor.

It can just be read, then The Holy Spirit will guide one into understanding it based on the purity of one’s heart.

That is not the case​

If this were so, then there’d be no need for anyone to “pastor” the believers since they could learn revelation on their own, right?

Completely wrong. This is the same mistake as some people fall into when they see sacraments as being opposed to Christ rather than as means of His operation.​

Scripture, as the supreme guide of faith & morals, requires there to be pastors in the Church. To have them, is an act of obedience to it. So one is still moving within the system of Scripture by having them, & the other things mentioned in the Word of God. Bible studies have their origin in the OT. Helps such as concordances & other subsidia are just that: subsidiary to the Bible - they are not new doctrines.

These objections proceed on the assumption that obeying the Bible is contrary to belief in its supreme authority. What is totally forbidden, is the preaching of any “other Gospel” as the Gospel of God; not the obeying of it.

Maybe it would be a good idea for people to find what the doctrine means, before they attack it. I suggest a prolonged immersion in A.A. Hodges’ excellent & thorough Commentary on the Westminster Confession:

• rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcftoc.htm
• rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah1.htm

From another Commentary on the Confession:

• rtrc.net/documents/wcf/shaw/wcfrs01.htm

 

[Rightlydivide]

If Scripture Alone is sufficient for personal revelation,

why do you need the following:

 

[bengal_fan]

By all means then BFan…explain.

And thank you.

Yes, the things I mentioned “are” in Scripture.
Yet, they are all instuments in worship.

Now, what is the “pastor’s” job
(I am assuming that you are a Protestant)
in your definition of the word pastor?

it’s been explained numerous times on these forums by myself and many others. no need to do it again. do a search and you’ll find what you’re looking for.

unless (that is) what you’re looking for is an argument, then keep going with your little thread here.

 

[2ndGen]

So basically, one needs pastors too?

See, now I’m confused.

So Scritpture Alone is “not” enough?

 

[2ndGen]

it’s been explained numerous times on these forums by myself and many others. no need to do it again. do a search and you’ll find what you’re looking for.

unless (that is) what you’re looking for is an argument, then keep going with your little thread here.

Actually, I asked, but nobody answered.

 

[jmcrae]

If scripture is the final authority, one has to FOLLOW scripture.
Scripture does not say that you have to have a church building.
It does say fellowship, a pastor, and studying scripture are needed.
We cannot pick and chose what we believe.
We have to do what the Bible says. If you know these things are in the Bible, and in a later post you admit they are, why would you be puzzled about why we would have them?
A person who follows scripture cannot any more ignore them than a Catholic can decide to not follow Catholic doctrines.
The question borders on the absurd.

So, you not only need the Bible, but also everything that is mentioned in the Bible, and the traditions that come out of the Bible. Meaning that there can be no such thing as a “bible alone” religion, that could be considered Biblical.