Name 1 who used “Scripture Alone”

[mo3]

Please name 1 human being, in the history of mankind, who has used “Scripture Alone” to learn how to be saved? This person must have never heard or learned anything about salvation from another human being, like a parent, preacher, friend, a bible translator, a bible scholar, etc.

If there has never been 1 person to learn all they need to know about salvation from reading “Scripture Alone”, then how can Scripture be totally sufficient?

 

[Liberian]

Mo,

You have an excellent point. On a few occasions I have posted some straight Scripture–a verse of Hebrew consonants, nothing more–on an anti-Catholic forum and invited the Evangelicals there to give me the proper interpretation. When they ask what part of the Bible it comes from, I encourage them to “let the Spirit guide you into all truth.”

• Liberian

 

[Denise_Shae]

Mo,

You have an excellent point. On a few occasions I have posted some straight Scripture–a verse of Hebrew consonants, nothing more–on an anti-Catholic forum and invited the Evangelicals there to give me the proper interpretation. When they ask what part of the Bible it comes from, I encourage them to “let the Spirit guide you into all truth.”

• Liberian

I love your logic!

Anybody ever able to translate it and give you an answer?

God Bless!

 

[Liberian]

Denise,

The first time I did it I used Genesis 1:1 and somebody recognized it. All the other times I used something from Jeremiah or from Isaiah and nobody has come close.

• Liberian

 

[Truthstalker]

Please name 1 human being, in the history of mankind, who has used “Scripture Alone” to learn how to be saved? This person must have never heard or learned anything about salvation from another human being, like a parent, preacher, friend, a bible translator, a bible scholar, etc.

If there has never been 1 person to learn all they need to know about salvation from reading “Scripture Alone”, then how can Scripture be totally sufficient?

I assume you are in some way trying to use this to disprove Sola Scriptura. This approach actually demonstrates a lack of understanding of SS and to Protestant ears is parallel to what Catholics hear when they are accused of worshipping Mary.

“Sola Scriptura” refers to Scripture as the ultimate sole authority, in contrast to Scripture plus Tradition as equal, or Prima Scriptura, where both are accepted as authoritative, but with Scripture as always ahead. You seem to push SS to absurdity, which distorts it and reduces understanding.

 

[Fidelis]

I assume you are in some way trying to use this to disprove Sola Scriptura. This approach actually demonstrates a lack of understanding of SS and to Protestant ears is parallel to what Catholics hear when they are accused of worshipping Mary.

“Sola Scriptura” refers to Scripture as the ultimate sole authority, in contrast to Scripture plus Tradition as equal, or Prima Scriptura, where both are accepted as authoritative, but with Scripture as always ahead. You seem to push SS to absurdity, which distorts it and reduces understanding.

As long as Catholics constantly keep hearing from Protestants that they encounter: “I only go from the Bible” or “My pastor only preaches from the Bible” or “Where is that in the Bible?”, it is a logical deduction that this is what the rank and file Protestant believes. And in truth, the average Protestant does not make the distinctions that you and others have made in these forums.

In fact,until very recently (the last 20 years or so), it would not have occured to the average “Bible believing” Protestant to make any distinction at all in this area. Except for a few relatively obscure Protestant theologians, no one ever spoke of “Prima Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura.” It is only with the advent of the new Catholic apologists who have totally exposed the total unworkability, unhistoricity, unbiblicalness (if that’s a word) of this doctrine, that Protestant apologists have come up with these distinctions.

In actual point of practice, however, for the average Protestant (those that Catholics run ito every day), it’s much what this statement from a Protestant website says:

Christianity is all and only what the Bible alone teaches. Christ is all and nothing contrary to what the Bible alone says he is. And the personal relationship with God is and can only be had in terms of what the Bible alone says it is or can be had.

Christianity is not what any individual who calls himself a Christian says it is. It is not what the churches that call themselves Christian have practiced. Christianity is not an experience of any individual or the collective experience of a group. It is not a Papal edict. It is not trite sayings.

Christianity is the whole counsel of God revealed in the whole Bible alone.
studybibleforum.com/spages/Acts.htm

If Protestants think that Sola Scriptura is misunderstood, they better start with their fellow Protestants. There are, however, two major obstacles to this:

1. With several thousand Protestant denominations, where do you start?
2. With several thousand Protestant denominations, who’s to say what is the correct interpretation? Who has the authority? Who’s to say?
   

 

[Truthstalker]

As long as Catholics constantly keep hearing from Protestants that they encounter: “I only go from the Bible” or “My pastor only preaches from the Bible” or “Where is that in the Bible?”, it is a logical deduction that this is what the rank and file Protestant believes. And in truth, the average Protestant does not make the distinctions that you and others have made in these forums. In parallel, the same is true of the average Catholic.

In fact,until very recently (the last 20 years or so), it would not have occured to the average “Bible believing” Protestant to make any distinction at all in this area. Except for a few relatively obscure Protestant theologians, no one ever spoke of “Prima Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura.” It is only with the advent of the new Catholic apologists who have totally exposed the total unworkability, unhistoricity, unbiblicalness (if that’s a word) of this doctrine, that Protestant apologists have come up with these distinctions. I don’t know.

In actual point of practice, however, for the average Protestant (those that Catholics run ito every day), it’s much what this statement from a Protestant website says: If Protestants think that Sola Scriptura is misunderstood, they better start with their fellow Protestants. There are, however, two major obstacles to this:

1. With several thousand Protestant denominations, where do you start? I start with the people I know.
2. With several thousand Protestant denominations, who’s to say what is the correct interpretation? Who has the authority? God doesWho’s to say? God!
   

There are problems on both sides of the Tiber. I don’t presume to speak for all Protestants, even when I put on my Protestant hat, and likewise when I put on my Catholic thinking cap I do not venture to speak for all Catholics.

What is going on in the church is so incredibly complex and mysterious, with the Catholic Church and many Protestants moving towards each other in a thaw that hasn’t been seen since the Reformation, is something I am trying to get a hold of.

“The whole counsel of God, revealed in the Scriptures”: even if that is all there is, it is more than enough to fill the lifetimes of all humans who have ever lived or who ever will live. Personally I reel when I think of the concept. I have enough trouble with the little I understand. It’s like I have my own little bowl of oatmeal that fills me up, and I discover that the universe is full of oatmeal for all time. It’s like I cut out a paper doll from a piece of paper and think that is a man, and then discover a world populated by billions of three-dimensional, living, thinking, hoping people in incredible diversity. Like ordering a plain old hot dog and discovering I have 75,000,000 choices. “The whole counsel of God”: all His wisdom, higher, deeper, wiser, stronger than anything we can imagine, revealed to us. Awesome.

 

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by **Fidelis **
As long as Catholics constantly keep hearing from Protestants that they encounter: “I only go from the Bible” or “My pastor only preaches from the Bible” or “Where is that in the Bible?”, it is a logical deduction that this is what the rank and file Protestant believes. And in truth, the average Protestant does not make the distinctions that you and others have made in these forums. In parallel, the same is true of the average Catholic.If you’re talking about Sola Scriptura, Catholics don’t make distinctions because Protestants don’t. If you’re talking about Catholic doctrine (like devotion to Mary) that’s where the difference lies. If Catholics disagree or are in error about this, there is at least an authoritative Church that can give a definitive word on the subject. Protestants have no such luxury.

In fact,until very recently (the last 20 years or so), it would not have occured to the average “Bible believing” Protestant to make any distinction at all in this area. Except for a few relatively obscure Protestant theologians, no one ever spoke of “Prima Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura.” It is only with the advent of the new Catholic apologists who have totally exposed the total unworkability, unhistoricity, unbiblicalness (if that’s a word) of this doctrine, that Protestant apologists have come up with these distinctions. I don’t know.??

In actual point of practice, however, for the average Protestant (those that Catholics run ito every day), it’s much what this statement from a Protestant website says: If Protestants think that Sola Scriptura is misunderstood, they better start with their fellow Protestants. There are, however, two major obstacles to this:

1. With several thousand Protestant denominations, where do you start? I start with the people I know.Good luck! You had better bequeath this task to your great, great great great grandchildren as well.
2. With several thousand Protestant denominations, who’s to say what is the correct interpretation? Who has the authority? God does Who’s to say? God!There is no question that it is God that says. The real question is “Where can his answer be found?” In Scripture alone according the interpretation of the individual believer with Bible in hand? Potentially, as Martin Luther pointed out, you will end up with as many opinions as there are heads. They can’t all be true.
   .

 

[Truthstalker]

If you’re talking about Sola Scriptura, Catholics don’t make distinctions because Protestants don’t. If you’re talking about Catholic doctrine (like devotion to Mary) that’s where the difference lies. If Catholics disagree or are in error about this, there is at least an authoritative Church that can give a definitive word on the subject. Protestants have no such luxury.

The point here is that there is a lot more theological depth to both Protestant and Catholic positions than the adherents of either side are aware of: most Catholics are relatively uneducated about their faith, and Protestants may know the Bible but not theology, and so are content with a very simple SS.

I haven’t traced the history of SS’s development. Hodge had a fairly well nuanced one a hundred years ago, long before “twenty years ago.”

Good luck! You had better bequeath this task to your great, great great great grandchildren as well.

The task of exhorting people to live lives pleasing to God is daunting on either side of the Tiber. Shallow theology and people compromised morally or sold out to the world or apathetic are problems we all face.

There is no question that it is God that says. The real question is “Where can his answer be found?” In Scripture alone according the interpretation of the individual believer with Bible in hand? Potentially, as Martin Luther pointed out, you will end up with as many opinions as there are heads. They can’t all be true.

This is a fundamental problem with SS. The only solution is the same as under Scripture plus Tradition: God must be trusted to back the system, and guide one into all truth. If you believe God guides the Catholic Church and is His agent of mediation of His truth on the earth, you are a Catholic. If you believe God guides through the Scripture by His Spirit to the believer, you are a Protestant.

 

[Maranatha]

This is a fundamental problem with SS. The only solution is the same as under Scripture plus Tradition: God must be trusted to back the system, and guide one into all truth. If you believe God guides the Catholic Church and is His agent of mediation of His truth on the earth, you are a Catholic. If you believe God guides through the Scripture by His Spirit to the believer, you are a Protestant.

If two Protestants are guided in to two different interpretations, how should we know which one is right? Were both guided by God?

 

[dal11]

If scripture is ahead of tradition in it’s authority, shouldn’t scripture then tell us what books belong in the bible, but it dosen’t. Tradition does. So, by you excepting the books of the bible you are making a public statement that you except tradition at least as an equal to the bible.

 

[Truthstalker]

If two Protestants are guided in to two different interpretations, how should we know which one is right? Were both guided by God?

You ask God yourself to guide you. They are not authoritative.

 

[Truthstalker]

If scripture is ahead of tradition in it’s authority, shouldn’t scripture then tell us what books belong in the bible, but it dosen’t. Tradition does. So, by you excepting the books of the bible you are making a public statement that you except tradition at least as an equal to the bible.

I’ve never heard a good response to this problem, except for the argument that Scripture is self-attesting. The Church did not, in authenticating the canon, decide what was and what was not Scripture, but rather recognized what God had obviously done.

 

[dal11]

I’ve never heard a good response to this problem, except for the argument that Scripture is self-attesting. The Church did not, in authenticating the canon, decide what was and what was not Scripture, but rather recognized what God had obviously done…Yes, but which scripture.There were tons of scripture going around. It was the church that said this is God inspired this isnt. etc etc.

 

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by **Maranatha **
If two Protestants are guided in to two different interpretations, how should we know which one is right? Were both guided by God?

You ask God yourself to guide you. They are not authoritative.

That does not answer the question. To use only one example, if the Holy Spirit, through the Bible, tells one believer he is saved by baptism, but tells another believer with the same Bible he is not, it cannot be true for one and not the other. Who’s right? Who decides?

 

[JOE_OBERR]

I’ve never heard a good response to this problem, except for the argument that Scripture is self-attesting. The Church did not, in authenticating the canon, decide what was and what was not Scripture, but rather recognized what God had obviously done.

The only reason you can now say it was obvious what God had done was because the leader (Pope St. Damasus I) of the Church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church, defined the canon of the bible in 382 at the Council of Rome. Prior to that it was not so obvious as absolutely no one knew exactly what constituted the canon.

Even if, prior to 382, someone had arrived at the same list of the 46 Old & 27 New Testament books as Pope Damasus I, it would have been meaningless as that person had zero authority in the Church to name which books were inspired or not inspired. In other words, there was no Protestant revolution yet whereby any & everybody can make up his own gospel based on his own whims & fancies.

That is why Jesus founded his Church, “…the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) so we could know for certain what the truth is, not only concerning the canon of the bible, but on the WHOLE content of the gospel, the Word of God, which the apostles preached & taught and which cannot be found in the written Word of God in Scripture.

If Jesus would not have founded his Church we would be lost. He said to believe the gospel as preached by his apostles (Mt 16:15-16), not to make up our own gospel, something St. Paul warned against in Gal 1:7-9.

:tiphat:
Joe

 

[Truthstalker]

I’ve never heard a good response to this problem, except for the argument that Scripture is self-attesting. The Church did not, in authenticating the canon, decide what was and what was not Scripture, but rather recognized what God had obviously done…Yes, but which scripture.There were tons of scripture going around. It was the church that said this is God inspired this isnt. etc etc.

No, in SS God says God inspired it. The church just agrees.

 

[Truthstalker]

That does not answer the question. To use only one example, if the Holy Spirit, through the Bible, tells one believer he is saved by baptism, but tells another believer with the same Bible he is not, it cannot be true for one and not the other. Who’s right? Who decides?

In SS, God decides.

 

[Truthstalker]

The only reason you can now say it was obvious what God had done was because the leader (Pope St. Damasus I) of the Church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church, defined the canon of the bible in 382 at the Council of Rome. Prior to that it was not so obvious as absolutely no one knew exactly what constituted the canon.

Even if, prior to 382, someone had arrived at the same list of the 46 Old & 27 New Testament books as Pope Damasus I, it would have been meaningless as that person had zero authority in the Church to name which books were inspired or not inspired. In other words, there was no Protestant revolution yet whereby any & everybody can make up his own gospel based on his own whims & fancies.

That is why Jesus founded his Church, “…the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) so we could know for certain what the truth is, not only concerning the canon of the bible, but on the WHOLE content of the gospel, the Word of God, which the apostles preached & taught and which cannot be found in the written Word of God in Scripture.

If Jesus would not have founded his Church we would be lost. He said to believe the gospel as preached by his apostles (Mt 16:15-16), not to make up our own gospel, something St. Paul warned against in Gal 1:7-9.

:tiphat:
Joe

No, under SS it is obvious because God speaks to the individual believer.

 

[Stephen_C]

This is turning in a circular argument about the validity of Scripture alone or SS…like a dog chasing his tail. We all know and believe all the books in the bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit. And yes God does speak to the individual believer though his written words. But he gave the teaching authority to his Church. That trumps all individual interpretations. Now if you do not believe the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ well not much I can say about that…just keep on chasing your tail. By the grace of the Holy Spirit, I choose to believe. I choose to believe all that Catholic Church teaches. I choose to believe that the Catholic Church is all what she says she is.