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

[2ndGen]

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.

 

[SyCarl]

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.

If you actually read the homily in question you will see that Chrysostom is berating them for not giving enough attention to Scripture. He describes them listening to letters from kings but not the letters from God contained in the Scriptures. He is not saying anything about the quality of a homily.

 

[SyCarl]

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.

Do you actually know what is meant by scripture alone? If so perhaps you could tell us what you thinks it means.

 

[2ndGen]

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.

Great minds think alike.

 

[SyCarl]

So basically, one needs pastors too?

See, now I’m confused.

So Scritpture Alone is “not” enough?

Do you actually know what is meant by scripture alone or are you setting up a strawman of your own to take shots at? Perhaps you could tell us what you think it means.

 

[2ndGen]

Ok, so it’s agreed by our Protestant brethren, pastors are needed to help us interpret scripture.

Churches are needed to (both in the spiritual sense of fellowship and a “place” outside of our secular homes where great congregations of persons can worship together).

Now we’re getting somewhere.

What comes next if we keep bringing back “things” that are “in” The Bible?

The Altar, The Tabernacle, The Eucharist, Candles, Incense, well, you know…what God Himself ordained.



So, get to it!

Chop Chop!

 

[2ndGen]

Do you actually know what is meant by scripture alone or are you setting up a strawman of your own to take shots at? Perhaps you could tell us what you think it means.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”)
is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating,
clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader,
its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”),
and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Is that about right?

 

[Chancellare]

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.

And finally there is the need for Christian fellowship.

Bottomline:
Protestants replaced Catholic Church with corporate fellowship where interpretations of Bible are taught, sing, dance, play band, preach, etc.
Questions:
Is this Scripture alone?
or
Should it be: Scripture + interpretation and fellowship, etc (so long as it is not Catholic) ?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;3148242:

I’m all for churches and pastors and all that.

And you just proved something for me with your statement.

This question is set up to spark a dialogue.

Which ever Protestant answered that pastors “are” needed,
they can no longer ever say that Christians “don’t” need a man between them and God
(which is their main argument against the Papacy).

Also, they have to admit that “Scripture Alone” is not Scriptural. Scripture doesn’t lie. If they say that the Bible is all that is needed, then they cannot say that Scripture is all that’s needed AND a pastor to religiously lead us AND we need “a” church…well, by now, the board should get it.



Thank you for you answer.

I suppose IF there were any Christians who said that you do not need to follow the parts of the Bible that speak about pastors or fellowship, you made your point to them.
I have never met one but you seem to know a lot of them…

 

[jmcrae]

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”)
is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating,
clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader,
its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”),
and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Is that about right?

Which, obviously, it isn’t self-sufficient, since the bible itself tells us to listen to the Holy Tradition.

 

[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.

You spent more text telling me to do a search than simply answering the question.

Why can’t you just say that a pastor’s job is to shephard (lead) the flock?

Because then, you could’nt say that a man isn’t needed to help us with Scripture.

 

[2ndGen]

Which, obviously, it isn’t self-sufficient, since the bible itself tells us to listen to the Holy Tradition.

I’ve never heard a Protestant quote 2 Thess!

LOL!

Wonder why?

Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Wouldn’t adhering to “Sola Scriptura” be considered a observing a “tradition” of man since no where in The Bible does it state that we are to only use The Holy Bible for our revelation?

Plus the fact that a “man” in the 16th century made it up (coincidentally a “man” who edited The Word of God).

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen;3148393:

I suppose IF there were any Christians who said that you do not need to follow the parts of the Bible that speak about pastors or fellowship, you made your point to them.
I have never met one but you seem to know a lot of them…

I’ve come across tons of them. The usual comment is “I don’t need no Priest (who coincidentally are called “pastors”) or no Pope to tell me how I should worship God! All I need is The Bible!”

Of course, their teaching of Sola Scriptura came from (gasp!)…a “man”.

 

[SyCarl]

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”)
is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating,
clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader,
its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”),
and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Is that about right?

Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source. To put it quite simply Scripture Alone is the belief that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. It contains everything that is needed for salvation.

It does not mean that you must read the Bible and does not deny the value of oral teaching and preaching. It does not deny a role to tradition or the church but requires that these be subordinate to the truth contained in scripture. There may be truths that are not contained in Scripture but they are not necessary for salvation.

To quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

presbyterian.ca/ourfaith/whatwebelieve/subordinatestandards/chapter1

 

[Chancellare]

Wouldn’t adhering to “Sola Scriptura” be considered a observing a “tradition” of man since no where in The Bible does it state that we are to only use The Holy Bible for our revelation?

Plus the fact that a “man” in the 16th century made it up (coincidentally a “man” who edited The Word of God).

…and determined what should be in and what should be out in Scripture according to his own interpretation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;3148448:

I’ve come across tons of them. The usual comment is “I don’t need no Priest (who coincidentally are called “pastors”) or no Pope to tell me how I should worship God! All I need is The Bible!”

Of course, their teaching of Sola Scriptura came from (gasp!)…a “man”.

Seems like an oversimplication and let me explain. Catholics and Bible believers both listen to their pastors but if and when they contradict the Bible or Catholic doctrine, as the case may be, they are not to be listened to over the final authority.
The primacy of scripture comes straight from the Bible, that is why in God’s time, when the Bible became accessible, whole countries and people are practically running out of the Catholic church, I saw a program that said a certain Latin American country used to be almost a hundred percent Catholic and is now almost a 1/3 Protestant. God is doing a mighty work in the world.

 

[Chancellare]

To put it quite simply Scripture Alone is the belief that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. It contains everything that is needed for salvation.
SyCarl;3148518:

Where is this said in Scripture?

 

[SyCarl]

I’ve never heard a Protestant quote 2 Thess!

LOL!

Wonder why?

Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Wouldn’t adhering to “Sola Scriptura” be considered a observing a “tradition” of man since no where in The Bible does it state that we are to only use The Holy Bible for our revelation?

Plus the fact that a “man” in the 16th century made it up (coincidentally a “man” who edited The Word of God).

I am perfectly aware of 2 Thessalonians. However Paul does not say that the tradition passed on orally is any different than that which was passed on in writing. In fact we are told by Irenaeus that the tradition was first taught orally and then put into Scripture.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.-Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Chrysostom says much the same thing. He says that Timothy has the Scripture instead of him (Paul).

“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!."-John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Unlike its statements on Scripture the biblical statements on tradition are mixed. Yes, we have statements like that contained in 2 Thessalonians. But we also have others.

Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? "For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”
(Matthew 15:1-9 NASB)

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
(Colossians 2:8 NASB)

Can we trust Tradition? Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have apostolic succession. The Catholic Church agrees this is true. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox claim to follow Tradition but they don’t agree on the content? How can it be a reliable source?

 

[2ndGen]

Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source. To put it quite simply Scripture Alone is the belief that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. It contains everything that is needed for salvation.

It does not mean that you must read the Bible and does not deny the value of oral teaching and preaching. It does not deny a role to tradition or the church but requires that these be subordinate to the truth contained in scripture. There may be truths that are not contained in Scripture but they are not necessary for salvation.

]

Are you saying that the Wikipedia definition was not accurate?

As for your statement that it does “not” deny the role of tradition or the value of oral teaching, doesn’t this make the belief that Scripture Alone is insufficient?

Wait, let me ask you like this…is oral teaching and preaching “essential” to the revelation of Scripture?

Is tradition “essential” to the revelation of Scripture?

 

[bengal_fan]

You spent more text telling me to do a search than simply answering the question.

Why can’t you just say that a pastor’s job is to shephard (lead) the flock?

Because then, you could’nt say that a man isn’t needed to help us with Scripture.

because you obviously have an agenda with your questions.

plus, i’ve never said we didn’t need each other to interpret scripture. in fact, i’ve repeatedly said that scripture can only be properly understood within community. so, that is not why i didn’t just say what you wanted me to say.