Sola scriptura advocates...help...

[LaymanX]

I’m confused. Speaking strictly from a sola scripture (scripture alone) - perspective, where is prima Scriptura, sola Scriptura, the catechism of the Catholic Church, the Book of Concord, Confessions of Faith, the terms fundamental beliefs, primary beliefs, secondary beliefs and the term low churches, found in scripture alone? I thought Sola scriptura was the belief that the bible contains the only knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, and only those doctrines found in scripture, are to be embraced, which is why many non-Catholics deny Mary’s sinlessness?

People who hold to prima Scriptura don’t think you can get those primary beliefs without the help of Tradition. Namely, the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and all those other Confessions and Catechisms. Not all protestant churches hold to * sola Scriptura*.

Regarding those primary beliefs which you have listed, which of course have various interpretations, depending on church affiliation, how can a SS advocate know, with certainty, which SS advocate, regarding those primary beliefs, is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?

I believe the only things that SS advocates can claim to know with certainty are the fundamental beliefs, not the primary beliefs. All primary beliefs require Tradition. Therefore, only the Quakers, Anabaptists, and other really “liberal” protestants can claim certainty. And of course, that means that their beliefs are really basic stuff than every child can know. That is why you will hear them repeat Bible phrases that mention how “only the ones who have faith like a child will enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17).” Most of them don’t even mention Trinity or Incarnation. They believe that all you really need to be saved is to love Jesus Christ and believe that he died for your sins (like a child).

Hope that helps,

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

P.S. fundamental beliefs are obvious. If the Scriptures say that God sent his Son Jesus Christ to die for us because God loves us, and some teacher says God did not send his Son to us and that God does not love us, then I would know that teacher is lying. If another teacher says that God did send his Son Jesus to die for us because God loves us, then I would know that this teacher is telling the truth. If another teacher says that this idea is too confusing to understand, then I would know that this teacher is drunk. If anyone thinks that they cannot be certain about fundamental things like this, they need to go to the mental hospital.

 

[joe370]

Hey LaymanX…

People who hold to prima Scriptura don’t think you can get those primary beliefs without the help of Tradition. Namely, the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and all those other Confessions and Catechisms. Not all protestant churches hold to sola Scriptura.

Good point. But, for those who do hold fast to sola scriptura, in a strictly speaking manner, (I know that is not you) - and believe that the holy bible contains the only knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, and that only those doctrines explicitly found in scripture, are to be embraced, (which is why many non-Catholics deny Mary’s sinlessness) - I simply do not understand why they embrace things such as, the Book of Concord, Confessions of Faith, the terms fundamental beliefs, primary beliefs, secondary beliefs and the term low churches etc… I guess I simply don’t understand why the die-hard SS advocates insist that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, which can only be found in the holy bible, and then embrace things such as sola scriptura, which is not scriptural, or catechetical expositions that lie outside the purview of scripture.

I’ve got to run; thanks for all the feedback brother…

 

[joe370]

P.S. fundamental beliefs are obvious. If the Scriptures say that God sent his Son Jesus Christ to die for us because God loves us, and some teacher says God did not send his Son to us and that God does not love us, then I would know that teacher is lying. If another teacher says that God did send his Son Jesus to die for us because God loves us, then I would know that this teacher is telling the truth. If another teacher says that this idea is too confusing to understand, then I would know that this teacher is drunk. If anyone thinks that they cannot be certain about fundamental things like this, they need to go to the mental hospital.

Drunk…LOL…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here’s the difficulty I find with the SS advocates teaching (s). For one we only have one teacher and that is the Holy Spirit Himself. A SS advocate can never ever teach anything from the bible. Here is why?

The protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not come from the Apostolic written or Oral Traditions, it comes from man. No one can add or subtract from what God has revealed through the Son Jesus and the teachings from the Apostles who were taught by the Holy Spirit. Scripture records having only "One faith, One baptism and One Lord. No one can change or add to this revealed faith written and handed down to us by Apostolic Traditions.

The Church nor a SS can teach from scripture, one can only reveal what God has already revealed through the Son Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the one who reminds the Church of these revelations from God through Jesus and who teaches the Church all that Jesus said and did even those things not written.

A SS advocate claims from his/her interpretation of the scriptures recieves an enlightenment makes the false claim that his/her personal interpretation applies to the whole Church or community which can never be the case. Unless the personal interpretation does not conflict with what God has already revealed through Jesus and His apostles. In other words an interpretation of scripture can never conflict with the One faith handed down from Jesus and the apostles.

If we lived in the time period before the printing press, the average person could never rely on Sola Scriptura, this person would have to recieve the full deposit of faith by hearing and hearing the Word of God from the faith of the apostles being lived out in the Catholic Church only, because there is no bibles in circulation to hold to a Sola Scriptura faith.

Another interesting aspect of SS teachings, is that they apply their faith based on the enlightenment of scriptures calling it “spirit”. An enlightenment of feelings is not the apostolic “Faith” handed down. One can recieve an enlightment reading from a secular book or watching a film documentary.

To make the false claim that one recieves a right belief because they are enlightened (by feelings) calling it “moved by the Holy Spirit” and view this enlightened interpretation to refute or is in direct opposition to what God has already revealed to His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church does not come from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself.

The Holy Spirit has guided, protected and revealed the teachings of Jesus and His apostles through the Catholic Church in every age to every nation and tongue unchanged and continues to do so today. There can be no more new revelations other than what Jesus has already revealed.

St. Paul speaks volumes here; 1 Timothy 6; 3 Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching
4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions,

Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8** But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! 11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **

The Church is pillar and foundation of Truth. Because She possesses the written Word of God because She canonized the bible under the inspiration of the teacher “Holy Spirit”. She also possesses the Word of God made flesh in her sacraments again only through Her teacher the “Holy Spirit”.

To answer your question; one would take the SS interpretation and apply it to what God has already revealed through Jesus and His apostles written and oral Traditions. If they agree with the “full deposit of faith” handed down to the Church from the apostles, then it is of God, if it conflicts with God’s revelations through His Son Jesus and His Church, then it comes from man or is another gospel which is accursed, according to God’s Word.

We have the freedom to interpret scripture on a personal level from prayers and enlightenments, but this does not ever gives us the freedom to teach others outside the full deposit of faith which comes to us from Jesus both written and oral Traditions handed down to us from the apostles.

Peace be with you

joe370;7499916… From that I am assuming that ALL authorities outside the holy bible who are subordinate to, and are corrected by, the written word of God, which again is the SS advocates final authority, can rightfully form beliefs as they are moved by the Holy spirit.

With that said, specifically, how can a SS advocate know, with certainty, which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?

 

[joe370]

Hey Gabriel, you said:

…one would take the SS interpretation and apply it to what God has already revealed through Jesus and His apostles written and oral Traditions. If they agree with the “full deposit of faith” handed down to the Church from the apostles, then it is of God, if it conflicts with God’s revelations through His Son Jesus and His Church, then it comes from man or is another gospel which is accursed, according to God’s Word.

We have the freedom to interpret scripture on a personal level from prayers and enlightenments, but this does not ever gives us the freedom to teach others outside the full deposit of faith which comes to us from Jesus both written and oral Traditions handed down to us from the apostles.

That was the conclusion I drew, as a former SS advocate, and perhaps that is why Paul said:

I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wow joe, had I remembered Ephesians 3:8… I would not of wrote all of the above; thanks here is a bonus;

Ephesians 1: … 22** And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, **11 the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Ephesians 5: 27** that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish**. 29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it,** even as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. 26 If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. 27 5 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.**

1 Corinthians 4: 17 For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.

Acts 20: 28 **Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. **

joe370;7503071]

That was the conclusion I drew, as a former SS advocate, and perhaps that is why Paul said:

I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[joe370]

Gabriel, I used to wonder, as a former SS advocate, why scripture didn’t say something like:

…and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the scriptures, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known…

Wow joe, had I remembered Ephesians 3:8… I would not of wrote all of the above; thanks here is a bonus;

Ephesians 1: … 22** And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, **11 the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Ephesians 5: 27** that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish**. 29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it,** even as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. **so that there may be no division in the body,

but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. 26 If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. 27 5** Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.**

1 Corinthians 4: 17 For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.

Acts 20: 28 **Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. **

 

[Big_Dummy]

I am told by sola scriptura advocates that ALL authorities outside the holy bible are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God alone, and that the holy bible is the Christians final authority, and that the bible contains the only knowledge necessary for one’s salvation. From that I am assuming that ALL authorities outside the holy bible who are subordinate to, and are corrected by, the written word of God, which again is the SS advocates final authority, can rightfully form beliefs as they are moved by the Holy spirit.

With that said, specifically, how can a SS advocate know, with certainty, which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?

This is where studying to make oneself approved of God, a workman… Botttom line if you think you are going to find a perfect person who teaches everything 10000 percent right… lol The major protestant groups agrees on what is essentila to salvation.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

To answer your question; one would take the SS interpretation and apply it to what God has already revealed through Jesus and His apostles written and oral Traditions. If they agree with the “full deposit of faith” handed down to the Church from the apostles, then it is of God, if it conflicts with God’s revelations through His Son Jesus and His Church, then it comes from man or is another gospel which is accursed, according to God’s Word.

This is an outstanding observation. It’s very easy to critically examine what others believe, but very difficult to apply that same criticism to your own beliefs. Have you ever been critical of the traditions of your church; if not how would you know if they really were handed down from the apostles? And if they weren’t handed down from the apostles, that would make them of “another gospel” would it not? And if you don’t know if they were handed down, wouldn’t it be better to withhold judgment concerning those doctrines rather than proclaim them as truths?

 

[joe370]

Botttom line if you think you are going to find a perfect person who teaches everything 10000 percent right… lol The major protestant groups agrees on what is essentila to salvation.

BD, I am told by sola scriptura advocates that ALL authorities outside the holy bible are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God alone, and that the holy bible is the Christians final authority, and that the bible contains the only knowledge necessary for one’s salvation. From that I am assuming that ALL authorities outside the holy bible who are subordinate to, and are corrected by, the written word of God, which again is the SS advocates final authority, can rightfully form beliefs as they are moved by the Holy spirit.

How can a SS advocate, belonging to one of those major protestant groups, know which SS advocate (regardless of protestant group) - is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?

 

[joe370]

This is an outstanding observation. It’s very easy to critically examine what others believe, but very difficult to apply that same criticism to your own beliefs. Have you ever been critical of the traditions of your church; if not how would you know if they really were handed down from the apostles? And if they weren’t handed down from the apostles, that would make them of “another gospel” would it not? And if you don’t know if they were handed down, wouldn’t it be better to withhold judgment concerning those doctrines rather than proclaim them as truths?

I’m not judging sola scriptura. For SS to be believed it must be found somewhere in scripture, but it’s not.Scripture says that all scripture is inspired, not only scripture…

Regarding tradition, the same way you know that sacred scripture was handed down, via the church, from the apostles? And if scripture, as well as tradition, was not handed down from the apostles, that would make both of them of “another gospel” would it not?

Faith is required in both cases.

Back to the OP:

I am told by sola scriptura advocates that ALL authorities outside the holy bible are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God alone, and that the holy bible is the Christians final authority, and that the bible contains the only knowledge necessary for one’s salvation. From that I am assuming that ALL authorities outside the holy bible who are subordinate to, and are corrected by, the written word of God, which again is the SS advocates final authority, can rightfully form beliefs as they are moved by the Holy spirit.

With that said, specifically, how can a SS advocate know, with certainty, which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?

 

[JonNC]

As a Lutheran what is your interpretation of James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?”
Do you consider James an “epistle of straw” like Martin Luther did?

My interpretation of the verse you quote is best seen in light of Galatians 5:6:
*For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity. *

And what James says prior to 2:24:
*14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”e and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. *

James is talking about evidence of faith, and Paul is talking about faith that works through charity. And it is the same thing. While we are justified by faith, it must be a living, active faith. A faith that has no works is not a faith that saves, but a dead faith.

Is James a book of straw when compared with other Epistles (which is the actual quote, a comparison)? It can be, if not viewed through the other epistles. Otherwise, James is a strong reminder that faith must have works, even though Paul reminds us the that we are justified by grace alone through faith, and not by works of the law.

While the authoriship of James has always been in question, it is canon, and serves as that good reminder of how the regenerate are required to live.
As Luther said:

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

.
SInce hermeneutics is a responsibility of the “Church” and the “Church” decides what is inspired what “Church” are you talking about. The Catholic or the Lutheran?
Is this decision by the Church bound in heaven?

No. The decisions in Heaven bind the Church. It binds the entire Church Catholic. That we of the Church Militant are divided is the evidence of sin.

Jon

 

[Erich]

(From 2 Timothy 3 ESV)

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom [1] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings

The only sacred writings Timothy would have been acquainted with from childhood are the ones found in the Old Testament. If these verses prove anything, they prove too much.

Yes, the Scriptures are a tool for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority. But, who is the “man of God?”

The answer can be found here.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Know what???/

“how could I know, with certainty, which sola scriptura advocate ( all of which are also “searching the scriptures” as well) - is in fact teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?”

 

[joe370]

“how could I know, with certainty, which sola scriptura advocate ( all of which are also “searching the scriptures” as well) - is in fact teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?”

Understood.

 

[joe370]

No. The decisions in Heaven bind the Church. It binds the entire Church Catholic. That we of the Church Militant are divided is the evidence of sin.

Jon

Jon, I agree with you that the decisions in Heaven bind Jesus’ Church. Binding and loosing is a Jewish phrase and appears in the NT, as well as in the Targum, and in application, to bind and to loose, as you know, means to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority. This may be off topic, but what is your take on the following:

When dealing with sin in Jesus’ Church, Jesus said to His apostolic church:

“If your brother or sister sins…If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church, and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 18

What Jesus said to His apostles, regarding His church:

“…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16

 

[LaymanX]

But, for those who do hold fast to sola scriptura, in a strictly speaking manner, (I know that is not you) - and believe that the holy bible contains the only knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, and that only those doctrines explicitly found in scripture, are to be embraced, (which is why many non-Catholics deny Mary’s sinlessness) - I simply do not understand why they embrace things such as, the Book of Concord, Confessions of Faith, the terms fundamental beliefs, primary beliefs, secondary beliefs and the term low churches etc… I guess I simply don’t understand why the die-hard SS advocates insist that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, which can only be found in the holy bible, and then embrace things such as sola scriptura, which is not scriptural, or catechetical expositions that lie outside the purview of scripture.

You are correct. The sola Scriptura principle is inferred from various passage in their 66 books of the Protestant canon. The problem is that when they affirm such passages as plainly speaking about SS, there are a host of presupposed ideas which are actually based on tradition. For example:

1. Whenever Scripture speaks about “Scripture” it does not necessarily include the entire 66 books. Sometimes it doesn’t even include the New Testament, and other times it includes non-canonical books, and once in a while includes, dare I say, pagan books. Canonization took a long time of reflecting and prayer by the communion of bishops.
2. The idea of even being so concerned about justifying SS is in many ways a kind of post-Gutenburg press tradition. We all know that people didn’t have their own bibles on their bookshelves in antiquity. Scripture included prayer books, songs memorized, the daily conversations with the teachers themselves, the teachings of parents, and a host of other things which surround the velum or cowhides with sacred writings in them. That is Scripture, not just the piece of paper with words.
3. The idea of SS also presupposes a post-Kantian understanding of the autonomy of reason. No man is an island. We don’t spontaneously learn our language. There are limitations to our creativity. A painter who is given the colors red and purple cannot suddenly draw a picture that requires the colors yellow and green. No man can stand outside tradition and start from blank-slate. Strict, old-school foundationalism is dead.

Therefore, SS advocates are skating on thin ice.

Regards,

Francis

 

[joe370]

Wow, that was really well said, and I totally agree.

You are correct. The sola Scriptura principle is inferred from various passage in their 66 books of the Protestant canon. The problem is that when they affirm such passages as plainly speaking about SS, there are a host of presupposed ideas which are actually based on tradition. For example:

1. Whenever Scripture speaks about “Scripture” it does not necessarily include the entire 66 books. Sometimes it doesn’t even include the New Testament, and other times it includes non-canonical books, and once in a while includes, dare I say, pagan books. Canonization took a long time of reflecting and prayer by the communion of bishops.
2. The idea of even being so concerned about justifying SS is in many ways a kind of post-Gutenburg press tradition. We all know that people didn’t have their own bibles on their bookshelves in antiquity. Scripture included prayer books, songs memorized, the daily conversations with the teachers themselves, the teachings of parents, and a host of other things which surround the velum or cowhides with sacred writings in them. That is Scripture, not just the piece of paper with words.
3. The idea of SS also presupposes a post-Kantian understanding of the autonomy of reason. No man is an island. We don’t spontaneously learn our language. There are limitations to our creativity. A painter who is given the colors red and purple cannot suddenly draw a picture that requires the colors yellow and green. No man can stand outside tradition and start from blank-slate. Strict, old-school foundationalism is dead.

Therefore, SS advocates are skating on thin ice.

Regards,

Francis