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

[2ndGen]

At the time of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch the New Testament was not written yet. Everybody would agree, I think, that, during a time when new revelation is being inscripturated, the primary method of spreading the word is through oral teaching. The eunuch asked who Isaiah was writing about. He had the Old Testament but not the New. It would now be possible to answer this question by reading the Bible (Acts 8 itself for example). Of course someone can still be taught orally what the Bible records for us.

So the term Sola Scriptura doesn’t apply to individual Scriptures, but only to The Collection of The Scriptures as a whole?

 

[SyCarl]

So the term Sola Scriptura doesn’t apply to individual Scriptures, but only to The Collection of The Scriptures as a whole?

At least in my understanding it refers to the whole Bible, which does not mean that you can’t learn what you really need from only parts…

 

[Chancellare]

At the time of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch the New Testament was not written yet. Everybody would agree, I think, that, during a time when new revelation is being inscripturated, the primary method of spreading the word is through oral teaching. The eunuch asked who Isaiah was writing about. He had the Old Testament but not the New. It would now be possible to answer this question by reading the Bible (Acts 8 itself for example). Of course someone can still be taught orally what the Bible records for us.

This becomes a major case illustration.
If Philip and the rest of the apostles followed in Sola Scriptura, a lot of things in the Bible wouldn’t have been fulfilled.
If the apostles did not follow SS, what makes us special?

 

[SyCarl]

This becomes a major case illustration.
If Philip and the rest of the apostles followed in Sola Scriptura, a lot of things in the Bible wouldn’t have been fulfilled.
If the apostles did not follow SS, what makes us special?

The Apostles were part of the new revelation. It is Jesus’ and their revelation that is recorded in the New Testament. Therefore sola scriptura would not apply to them as they were making the revelation that was being recorded.

 

[2ndGen]

At least in my understanding it refers to the whole Bible, which does not mean that you can’t learn what you really need from only parts…

Ok, but can one learn everything needed from one scripture or from say a specific set of scriptures?

I believe that if one pleases God enough by their righteousness, one doesn’t even need a book for God to reveal Himself to them (and Romans 2 also alludes to this).

 

[2ndGen]

This becomes a major case illustration.
If Philip and the rest of the apostles followed in Sola Scriptura, a lot of things in the Bible wouldn’t have been fulfilled.
If the apostles did not follow SS, what makes us special?

Well, when did Christians (excuse me, “some” Christians) begin to believe “in” Sola Scriptura?

 

[Chancellare]

The Apostles were part of the new revelation. It is Jesus’ and their revelation that is recorded in the New Testament. Therefore sola scriptura would not apply to them as they were making the revelation that was being recorded.

That’s fine.
So when Protestants revised the canon during 16th century which recorded revelation in the NT did they follow?

 

[FredSmith]

There are plenty of “lone rangers” out there who believe that church - any church - is “the whore of babylon,” and that meeting together in a church building, or having a paid minister in authority over a group of Christians, is offensive to God.

They literally read the Bible alone - no other books - no concordances, no commentaries, and absolutely no philosophers, Church Fathers, etc., and also no magazines, story books, or anything else. They own literally one book: a Bible, usually a King James Bible. They don’t go to Church, they don’t pray for others, they don’t participate in service activities; they worship at home alone or with others who live in the same house with them, but they don’t go out, or associate with other Christians at all, in case of “contamination” with the world, or with denominational politics, etc.

Then they, like the Roman Catholics here who constantly try to misrepresent sola scriptura, have misunderstood sola scriptura.

Would you like it if I characterized all Roman Catholics by the pedophile priests that they tacitly endorse?

No?

Then why do you decry sola scriptura based on someone who isn’t practicing sola scriptura?

 

[2ndGen]

Then they, like the Roman Catholics here who constantly try to misrepresent sola scriptura, have misunderstood sola scriptura.

 

[FredSmith]

But why meet if one only needs a bible? What’s the meeting for?

Because the Bible commands us to meet corporately for preaching and teaching of God’s word, for corporate worship, for the edification of the saints, for accountability, for prayer, and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

Who needs to be edified?

Every believer.

Isn’t the bible sufficient to edify all by itself?

It’s one means of edification.

God has also given each believer gifts and abilities so that he can edify others and, in turn, be edified by others.

Preached and teached by who? A man?

As opposed to what? A tree?

Why does it have to be preached and teached if the bible can be interpreted personally by individuals?

It is preached because that it God’s proscribed method to disseminiate His word.

But everything that is needed to study God’s word is already “supposedly” in the bible?

And how did you come to this conclusion?

Martin Luther, the inventor of the post 16th cenutury European doctrine.

And your source for this is…?

 

[FredSmith]

By the way, does it bother you that the same man who invented Sola Scriptura ( :clapping: ) also venerated Mary and prayed to her and believed in her Perptual Virginity and Immaculate Conception (along with Calvin and Zwigli)?

First of all, Martin Luther did not invent the Bible.

Second, if he did worship Mary or wrongly believe that she remained a virgin, then he was wrong.

Was it ok to follow “some” of his teachings while ignoring his other teachings?

We don’t follow his teachings. We follow God’s word.

The last thing you want to do is bring up sexual abuse in Christian Churches especially since it occurs at a rate of 14 to 1 among Protestants.

Every 1 1/2, a Protestant child is sexually abused in the Protestant Church every year.

So…don’t even. I hate reminding those who bring up Catholic infractions by pointing out the logs in their eyes, but I will do it.

Since there are so many more Christian churches than Roman Catholic churches, it stands to reason that it would happen more often in Christian churches.

The difference is that we deal with it. We remove them from ministry and cooperate with the law to bring them to justice.

Roman Catholics just send them to another church without bothering to tell parents of the children there what’s coming their way.

 

[2ndGen]

Because the Bible commands us to meet corporately for preaching and teaching of God’s word, for corporate worship, for the edification of the saints, for accountability, for prayer, and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

 

[2ndGen]

First of all, Martin Luther did not invent the Bible.

 

[FredSmith]

So you accept that teaching that outside of the Bible, you need buildings right? But completely ignore The Eucarhist that Jesus implimeted or the forgiveness of sins that Jesus authorized “only” to The Apostles (never the disciples)?

You “pick and choose” and not accept “everything?”

Yes. We only “accept” that which is taught in scripture.

Meeting in a physical structure is something we find in scripture.

You’re eucharist is not.

The Bible commands us to work out our salvation, but you probably don’t believe in that either right?

Not in the sense that you mean it, no.

But isn’t the bible sufficient alone to edify the believer without outside sources?

Answered this one already.

[quoet]So now you’re saying that there are “other” sources of edification outside of the bible?

When did I ever say otherwise?

That’s all good well and fine, but that’s not what Sola Scriptura teaches according to Martin Luther, the creator of the doctrine, right?

Again, I don’t care what Luther taught. I’m talking about what God’s word teaches.

No, as opposed to The Bible.

The Bible is a book and, as such, does not have the ability to speak, which is required for preaching.

How can a man teach the bible if the bible is self-sufficient and all that’s needed for personal revelation?

Answered this one already.

Could you please refer to the Scripture that states this?

1 Corinthians 1:21

Sola Scriptura! Am I wrong?

Yes, as usual, you’re wrong.

Martin Luther himself!

That’s a little vague. Would you mind citing the specific statement he made to this effect?

So doesn’t that make Sola Scriptura a man made doctrine and “not” Scriptural?

No, it is still Biblical.

Well then, can you trust his other teachins (his 5 Solas) if he was “wrong” in another Christian teaching?

They five solas are Biblical. Luther did not invent them.

Ok, show me where in God’s word the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is revealed…oh wait!

From my good friend, Matt Slick’s website:

carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm

You said Martin Luther invented Sola Scriptura (not God).

I never said Martin Luther invented sola scriptura.

Actually, Catholics outnumber Protestants by 80% to 20% worldwide and in the US, we are the biggest single Christian group. Here, we are 60% of Christianity (a fact I just learned), yet Protestants outabuse Catholics in churches by 14 times.

Just as I said.

Oh, so why so many more lawsuits than Catholic Churches if it’s dealt with based on the same allegations made against The Catholic Church that the “church” in question didnt act upon actionable intelligence?

Because, as you said, Christian churches outnumber Roman Catholic churches 14:1.

And Protestants didn’t do that at a rate of 3,500 a year to 240 a year for Catholics?

No.

 

[2ndGen]

[FredSmith;3199938]

Yes. We only “accept” that which is taught in scripture.

So then, you “accept” that Jesus taught that the bread is His body and “not” just a piece of bread after He blessed it?

Meeting in a physical structure is something we find in scripture.

So is sodomy.

You’re eucharist is not.

Oh Oh…here it comes…why not?
Not in the sense that you mean it, no.

[quoet]So now you’re saying that there are “other” sources of edification outside of the bible?

When did I ever say otherwise?

Sola Scriptura says that only the bible is to be used. You are a Sola Scripturian, right?

Again, I don’t care what Luther taught. I’m talking about what God’s word teaches.

Again, The Word of God didn’t teach Sola Scriptural.
Only Martin Luther did. So then, you don’t care about Sola Scriptura?

The Bible is a book and, as such, does not have the ability to speak, which is required for preaching.

Ohhhhh, so now you’re saying that the “bible alone” is insufficient for self revelation.

Wow…that totally blows Sola Scriptura out the water.

1 Corinthians 1:21

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

But wait, that states that more than the bible is used to teach (preach).

How is that in any way “sola”?

Yes, as usual, you’re wrong.

OK, tell us what Sola Scriptura is since Martin Luther it’s inventor was wrong.

That’s a little vague. Would you mind citing the specific statement he made to this effect?

Absolutely! Here, Martin Luther adds words to the bible admitting that the word “alone” never existed there in the first place. This shows that he didn’t believe that the bible alone was sufficient, that he had to add words to it to convince people of his new fangled doctrine:

A “Protestant” source:

cogwriter.com/luther.htm

Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans

*The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word “allein” (English ‘alone’) to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:

…Martin Luther would once again emphasize…that we are “justified by faith alone”, apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein (“alone”) in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther’s move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).

Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority–a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By “papists” he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.*

 

[jmcrae]

First of all, Martin Luther did not invent the Bible.

Nobody said he did. He also didn’t invent the concept of “sola scriptura” - that was Zwingli, one of his followers, whom he excommunicated (and also tried to burn him at the stake - he escaped).

Second, if he did worship Mary or wrongly believe that she remained a virgin, then he was wrong.

Based on what? How do you know?

Since there are so many more n/c Christian churches than Roman Catholic churches, it stands to reason that it would happen more often in Christian churches.

Sorry? There are 1.5 billion Catholics. (1,500,000,000) There are 600 million non-Catholic Christians (600,000,000). (includes African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God; Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics outside of union with Rome (eg: The Old Catholic Church; the Polish National Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church, etc.), Christadelphians, Christian Science, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormons”), Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Local Church, Lutherans, Methodists, Monophysites, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches (Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the “Christian Church and Churches of Christ”; the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard churches, just to name a few. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity, cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups. None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid, meaning that you might protest and say, “Half those guys aren’t even Christians at all!!” Which of course reduces your side of the statistic to 300,000,000. ).

The difference is that we deal with it. We remove them from ministry and cooperate with the law to bring them to justice.

So do we, or hadn’t you heard? Entire Dioceses are closing down due to the court costs associated with getting rid of these pedophiles. (We pay both sides - the victim and the pedophile, because neither of them has any money of their own, and without us to pay for the court costs on both sides as well as the payouts to the victims - if you want to be a millionaire for life, just claim that a priest abused you; you’ll never have to ask for donations at your church again - the trial would never occur. Quite frankly, I can understand the Bishops who just fired these guys and sent them on their way. It was wrong, but I do understand why they did that.)

Roman Catholics just send them to another church without bothering to tell parents of the children there what’s coming their way.

Actually, they fired them and sent them away - they got jobs elsewhere on their own - nobody was giving them a reference or anything. Nobody was saying, “Oh yeah - he’s okay.” The stupid part is, nobody was ever asking why that particular priest was unemployed. But even one time is too many; they should have shut down the churches and brought them to trial. My heart goes out to those poor kids.

But I have personally witnessed, as an Elder in a Protestant church in the early 1990s, exactly the same behaviour from Protestants, where a minister was just quietly fired and sent on his way to who knows where, after several incidents of sexual abuse. (Not kids, in that case, but bad enough.) I also remember someone at the time saying, “Thank God we’re not Catholics. We’d get crucified if this ever got out. As it is, everyone will understand that we just couldn’t afford to lose our church over this by making it public and putting him on trial.”

 

[Publisher]

I didn’t see this thread or I would have answered sooner…my Meeting doesn’t have a pastor or “ordained” clergy…all present may speak the word of the Lord as moved by the Spirit. Friends aren’t “sola scriptura”…

 

[2ndGen]

Nobody said he did. He also didn’t invent the concept of “sola scriptura” - that was Zwingli, one of his followers, whom he excommunicatedout. As it is, everyone will understand that we just couldn’t afford to lose our church over this by making it public and putting him on trial."

:clapping:

 

[2ndGen]

I didn’t see this thread or I would have answered sooner…my Meeting doesn’t have a pastor or “ordained” clergy…all present may speak the word of the Lord as moved by the Spirit. Friends aren’t “sola scriptura”…

I think that’s a beautiful way for a group that doen’t adhere to any particular denomination to work on seeking God.

 

[JehuandGod]

Then why do catholics have the pope and the catecism and the Ineffabillis Deus and not just the Word of God by His spirit?