Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter eucharist04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mea_Culpa said:
2 Tim 3:15-17:
and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Of course, conveniently ignoring the beginning of the sentence in 2 Tim 3:14: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, "
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t ignore it at all. It just isn’t a part of that passage. I’m not Catholic so mushing different verses together, regardless of context isn’t really my thing.

I showed a passage that shows that God gave us His word for the purpose of determining our doctrine and practice. If you have a problem with that, take it up with God.
Where in there does it talk about sola scriptura? Where does it say that ONLY the Bible is necessary?
Click to expand...
That isn’t what sola scriptura is.

Sola scriptura doesn’t teach that the Bible is the only source that is necessary, but that it is the authority to which all of the other sources must defer.
It says Scripture is profitable - no Catholic would argue with that. It doesn’t say that the Bible is all that is needed.
Click to expand...
Actually, the phrase the Bible uses that is so commonly translated as “profitable” is *πᾶς γραφή θεόπνευστος καί ὠφέλιμος πρός διδασκαλία *, which literally means “God has given us scripture for this purpose”.
This one Bible verse, taken out of context, is all the Scriptural justification you have for sola scriptura?
Click to expand...
Actually, I didn’t post just the one verse. I posted a whole passage.

Second, no, it isn’t all we have but even if it were, it would be enough.
Since *sola scriptura *is un-Scriptural, it contradicts itself. If you can only believe what’s in the Bible, but *sola scriptura *isn’t in the Bible, then you shouldn’t believe in sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
And since sola scriptura is Biblical, the Christian can believe it with confidence. The Catholic, of course, will continue to not believe it.
 
God has also given us His Church to help discern scripture.

But nowhere in that scripture is Sola Scriptura. :nope:
 
Skip_Wiley said:
No, I didn’t ignore it at all. It just isn’t a part of that passage. I’m not Catholic so mushing different verses together, regardless of context isn’t really my thing.
Click to expand...
Very interesting perspective.
Did you know that “Chapters” and “Verses” were not added to the Bible books until after the first millenia (I believe)?
How do you suppose those poor souls reading Paul’s letter in the years 100, or 500, or 700 AD knew which “verses” were or were not “Part of the Passage”?

The Fact is they did not. They read the entire letter and treated as what it was; A whole. Not a series of verses to be picked apart and examined apart from the context. I addressed this also in Post number 45 where I illustrated that you cannot take a single quote from Paul’s Letter and try to make it fit all of Scripture.

Here is how they would have seen the passage. I invite you to read this and tell me it’s not all part of a single thought:
Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Click to expand...
One thing you will find about Catholics is we Love the Entirety of the Bible, and not just the convenient bits and pieces. We don’t “mush” different things together, we deal with them as a whole and in context.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Very interesting perspective.
Did you know that “Chapters” and “Verses” were not added to the Bible books until after the first millenia (I believe)?
How do you suppose those poor souls reading Paul’s letter in the years 100, or 500, or 700 AD knew which “verses” were or were not “Part of the Passage”?

The Fact is they did not. They read the entire letter and treated as what it was; A whole.
Click to expand...
Actually, they didn’t read it at all because the Catholic church wouldn’t let them.
 
notsmart said:
That is a statement you will need to substantiate.
Click to expand...
No, as long as you all don’t feel the need to substantiate the things you say about me or my religion, I don’t really feel any compulsion to back anything up for you.
 
Speaking as a Free Methodist minister, I can say that as far as the Wesleyan churches are concerned we do and do not hold to Sola Scriptura.

First, when I was ordained I vowed not to teach anything as essential to Salvation that could not be proven from the Scriptures. There is a great deal of theology that is not absolutely essential to Salvation. So one could say that we do believe in a form of Sola Scriptura.

Other the other hand, we believe in tradition, reason and experience. Along with the Scriptures, these form what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The best way to understand our position is to envision a baseball diamond shape.

At the top (2nd base) is Holy Scripture. Everything we teach and believe must be consistent with Scripture (even if it is not expressly taught in Scripture).

At 3rd base, is Tradition - the collective wisdom and teaching of the Christian Church. We differ from our Catholic brethren, in that we believe tradition must be tested by Scripture.

At 1st base, level with Tradition, is Reason. Reason must also be tested by Scripture.

Finally, at the bottom, is Experience. We test Experience by Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

So, in matters not essential to Salvation, Wesleyans believe in Scripture as the highest authority - but not the only authority. You might call it “Prima Scriptura”.

The one big disadvantage to this position is that it puts us squarely in the middle where we can be shot at by both sides 🙂
 
Pastor VW, that’s the confusing element here in these forums.
Some posters identify with “no denomination” or they simply dont identify their denomination in specific. Maybe some are not sure yet.😉
So its really hard to tell what theology some posters adhere to.
I like the way you explained yours, (which I have glanced at) but not all posters are as articulate as you are in explaining what they believe.
Or honest enough to state what communion they belong to.
 
PastorVW said:
Speaking as a Free Methodist minister, I can say that as far as the Wesleyan churches are concerned we do and do not hold to Sola Scriptura.

First, when I was ordained I vowed not to teach anything as essential to Salvation that could not be proven from the Scriptures. There is a great deal of theology that is not absolutely essential to Salvation. So one could say that we do believe in a form of Sola Scriptura.

Other the other hand, we believe in tradition, reason and experience. Along with the Scriptures, these form what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The best way to understand our position is to envision a baseball diamond shape.

At the top (2nd base) is Holy Scripture. Everything we teach and believe must be consistent with Scripture (even if it is not expressly taught in Scripture).

At 3rd base, is Tradition - the collective wisdom and teaching of the Christian Church. We differ from our Catholic brethren, in that we believe tradition must be tested by Scripture.

At 1st base, level with Tradition, is Reason. Reason must also be tested by Scripture.

Finally, at the bottom, is Experience. We test Experience by Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

So, in matters not essential to Salvation, Wesleyans believe in Scripture as the highest authority - but not the only authority. You might call it “Prima Scriptura”.

The one big disadvantage to this position is that it puts us squarely in the middle where we can be shot at by both sides 🙂
Click to expand...
In reality, do you teach exactly what God intended from the bible, or are you teaching what you think that God is intending to the best of your ability.

What if a person in your church is leading a bible study, and is teaching something completely opposite to what you are teaching from the pulpit, and he is basing his teaching upon the bible alone?
Would you confront him?
Would you tell him that he can’t teach that in your church?
If you asked him not to teach it, and he insisted that he must, because he truly believes that is what scripture is telling him, would you ask him to leave the church for the sake of unity.
And what if he has been a member of your church for a lot longer that you have been, in fact his grandfather started that church, he was baptized in it, so were his children, would you still ask him to leave?
 
PastorVW said:
Speaking as a Free Methodist minister, I can say that as far as the Wesleyan churches are concerned we do and do not hold to Sola Scriptura.

Other the other hand, we believe in tradition, reason and experience. Along with the Scriptures, these form what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

So, in matters not essential to Salvation, Wesleyans believe in Scripture as the highest authority - but not the only authority. You might call it “Prima Scriptura”.
Click to expand...
I am curious, you are a 'Free Methodist", my sister in-law attends a United Methodist church. And there is the Methodist church.

Why the difference? Are there major doctrinal differences, or just minor types of worship differences? How does these differences reflect the authority of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Shouldn’t truth bind Christians together, rather than split them apart?
 
Skip_Wiley said:
No, I didn’t ignore it at all. It just isn’t a part of that passage. I’m not Catholic so mushing different verses together, regardless of context isn’t really my thing.
Click to expand...
It’s one sentence (you have heard of sentences, right?)

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
I showed a passage that shows that God gave us His word for the purpose of determining our doctrine and practice.
Click to expand...
That’s great, except 2 Tim 3:16 says

All Scripture is inspired by God

(This is what the Catholic Church believes)

and profitable for teaching

(We think it’s profitable also)

for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

(it definitely is profitable for these things)

that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Where in there does it mention “determining our doctrine and practice”?? Nowhere, that’s where.
Sola scriptura doesn’t teach that the Bible is the only source that is necessary, but that it is the authority to which all of the other sources must defer.
Click to expand...
OK, great. Where is that taught in the Bible? Oh, nowhere, that’s where.
Actually, the phrase the Bible uses that is so commonly translated as “profitable” is *πᾶς γραφή θεόπνευστος καί ὠφέλιμος πρός διδασκαλία *, which literally means “God has given us scripture for this purpose”.
Click to expand...
This is just wrong. The word ωφελιμος means “helpful or serviceable, that is, advantageous: - profit (-able).” The Greek you have mistranslated above literally translates:

“All Scripture (is) God-breathed (inspired) and profitable for instruction.”

Who told you it meant something else? Whoever it was, they lied to you.
Actually, I didn’t post just the one verse. I posted a whole passage.
Click to expand...
Second, no, it isn’t all we have but even if it were, it would be enough.
Click to expand...
Great, please post the rest of the Scripture passages that teach sola scriptura. crickets chirping (Hint: there aren’t any)
And since sola scriptura is Biblical, the Christian can believe it with confidence.
Click to expand...
If it’s Biblical, where is it taught in the Bible?
The Catholic, (since we have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit against the Church teaching false doctrines like sola scriptura) of course, will (correctly) continue to not believe it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and we will also contine to believe in the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, transubstantiation, the Communion of Saints, the primacy of Peter and his successor the Pope, and all sorts of other true doctrines. It’s what we call “The Fullness of the Truth.”
 
I get the feeling that Skip was just speaking out of frustration. He doesn’t mean it.:console:
 
Skip_Wiley said:
Actually, they didn’t read it at all because the Catholic church wouldn’t let them.
Click to expand...
Your statement here does not address the issue I brought up in my post.
Whether or not you think that the common folk were “allowed” to read scripture, someone was reading scripture for many centuries without the “Benefit” of Chapter and Verse. In fact, I just checked HERE and found it wasn’t until the 1400’s that the Chapter and Verses were put in. That means that for 1000 years, the canon of the Bible was read without Chapters and verses.

As a result those reading the passage I quoted from 2 Timothy would not be quoting “A Verse” but reading an entire letter.

Peace
James
 
Mea Culpa said:
2 Tim 3:15-17:
and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Of course, conveniently ignoring the beginning of the sentence in 2 Tim 3:14: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, "

In other words, the Scriptures are not all that is required or necessary - there is also what you have learned and from whom you have learned it. Catholics call this “what you have learned” Sacred Tradition, and “from whom you have learned it” the Magisterium of the Church.
Click to expand...

To what Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church is Paul referring in the verse above?

Be specific, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top