Sola scriptura and corrections?

[lanman87]

Is it determined by the majority or the individual church?

First you need to understand that we don’t consider the church as infallible. We see “The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it” to be a statement of the church being indefectible not being infallible. We see all men as being falliable, including the Pope and the “Ruling offices” of the church. We are all subject to cultural, political, and personal pressures to decide one thing or another.

Therefore, we look at the Bible as the final rule. But we also look at the historic confessions of God’s People and look at how they understood the Bible. That is why most churches who practice Sola Scriptura will accept the early creeds. It is because we believe those creeds are faithful to “rule of faith” that was initially taught orally by the apostles and preserved in written form in the New Testament scriptures.

We also admit that the Bible doesn’t teach everything about everything and that there are some passages that are hard to understand or that there is no clear cut consensus understanding. In those instances we offer grace to those who hold a different opinion than us because we are all fallible humans who are born of the Spirit and in the process of being sanctified. Ultimately, when all of God’s Children are home and set free of the physical and intellectual limitations, Christ prayer of unity will be made real, as we will all have perfect knowledge and understanding.

Ultimately, in the age of freedom of religion, we all have to decide what church is best for us and our relationship with God. Catholics choose to be Catholic and hold to Catholic teaching. Presbyterians choose to be Presbyterians and hold to Presbyterian teaching and so on. There is a wide variety of reasons people give for choosing which church to attend. But ultimately it is about Christ and knowing Him and living out our faith in Him.

 

[MCA]

Let me explain myself better, exegesis is the tool, but there are something in scripture that are not clear. To those I would say nobody should be dogmatic. I could asnwer point per point of the issues yo brought up if you like and have time.

To others expose it with exegesis as the JW they are the worse of the worse going to the greek. Thet cannot be even in the conversation.

God bless you

 

[fhansen]

Let me explain myself better, exegesis is the tool, but there are something in scripture that are not clear. To those I would say nobody should be dogmatic.

Why shouldn’t the Church be dogmatic apart from Scripture? By what reason should we presume that all critical revelation is included or clearly explained in Scripture? Or that Scripture can necessarily speak for itself where certainty is necessary but not forthcoming?

 

[Bithynian]

It’s also worth highlighting that differences in Protestant theology does not automatically equal disunity in communion. Many churches are administratively independent for historical reasons, but they often share pulpit and eucharistic communion if they determine that their diverse theological interpretations are nonetheless legitimate expressions (see for example the Porvoo Communinon between Anglican and Lutheran churches in Europe). This is quite similar to the relationship between Western and Eastern Catholic theology.

 

[MCA]

What you mean by critical revelation?

1 Corinthians 4:6 New King James Version (NKJV)

6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

That could be a bit cherry pick from my part, but I will defend it by saying the judgment of some issues should be silence

 

[MCA]

You never dissapoint with your comments brother!

 

[fhansen]

Yes except that the relationship between Eastern and Catholic theology doesn’t necessarily mean differences, except on that one crucial point regarding authority if we’re speaking of EO, the only kind of authority BTW, that possesses the possibility of resolving the disunity present in Christianity. Is disunity of beliefs good for some reason? Is that God’s will?

 

[fhansen]

That could be a bit cherry pick from my part, but I will defend it by saying the judgment of some issues should be silence

And I’d suggest that such a position can be conveniently and selectively self-serving. Let’s agree to disagree since Scripture cannot provide us with a clear answer. So, which interpretation is correct? That baptism is necessary for salvation providing its possible, or that it is not? Which is Christ’s will for man? Neither the ancient Churches in the east or the west need appeal to Scripture for the answer because the answer was already settled and in place for them from the beginning.

 

[MCA]

We do see with exegesis that baptism is also for babies, we dont have the historical factual proof but we do have the theological exegetical fragment as easy as to say that baptism is our circumsicion. And nontheless remember that the very church fathers used the scripture and did exegesis too.

Sorry for the typos I am from Spain and english is not the language I writte the best

 

[goout]

What you mean by critical revelation?

1 Corinthians 4:6 New King James Version (NKJV)

6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

That could be a bit cherry pick from my part, but I will defend it by saying the judgment of some issues should be silence

When taken in context, as scripture should always be, the chapter refers to personal authority.
He asks for imitation of the apostles.

be imitators of me. 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.

The word is inseparably bound up with the charism of authority that Christ gives to people.
Paul himself is not struck with a book from the sky. He is personally “driven to his knees” by Christ. And is then driven to the Church. The gospel he preaches and that is eventually committed to writing first comes from the personal encounter he has had with Christ and the Church.

 

[fhansen]

The Church continues to use Scripture to support her positions. She just doesn’t derive her postilions strictly from Scripture. Either way whole denominations spun off early in the Reformation on the very topic of infant vs believers baptism. And Scripture may as well be silent on the matter, sketchy as it is on the topic. I actually asked about baptismal regeneration, though, a different question.

 

[MCA]

I agree but I disagree if you are excluding that this had to do with our conversation why does he say not to think beyond of what’s written. Why he brings up what it is written

 

[MCA]

I think baptismal regeneration is not the issue. I would call it the effect of baptism and then see if it is regeneratory. If we go into this maybe we should do it through pm cause it’s gonna be long if I start to argue point per point.

 

[MCA]

Are you suggesting brother that the only “problem” between catholics and eastern orthodox is the papacy?

 

[Mishakel]

How do my brothers and sisters in Christ(Protestant), who self interpret the scripture, know when they are interpreting wrong? Do you go to your Pastor? Do you compare with others in your church?

This is a fairly simple topic but can lead to many side discussions.

Let’s get a quick base of mutual understandings.

1. Both sides, Catholics and Protestants believe that scripture is theópneustos. We won’t go into the extra books on the Catholic side, but beyond those both sides agree. Scripture was written by men but literally given by God himself.
2. Jesus himself held the Jews personally accountable to scripture. The Jews as a group literally had the OT. Jesus knew the Jews looked to the OT as a means for salvation.

What is our take away? God himself gave scripture to divine prophets and apostles so that it could be written down. This is true in both the OT and NT. If God gave the Jews the OT and held them accountable to its teachings, and gave them a means to salvation through them, why would anyone believe otherwise concerning the NT or new covenant? If one believes salvation lies outside of scripture, what is the proof they rely on for that belief?

Yes it’s certainly true there are many divisions of Protestantism. Would any Catholic truly say all Catholics and Bishops and Priests and Popes believe everything the same concerning scripture? I know the Catholic view is “we get our authority from the Church” but as we all know there are very very few verses of scripture that Catholicism has dogmatically defined. Outside of those rare cases how do you define the rest of scripture? If you say the Church, you will find many varying opinions within Catholicism on many passages.

The crux of Sola Scriptura goes back to my 2 points. I and other Protestants believe all that is needed for salvation itself is found in scripture, and we are held accountable to that. We believe God himself gave us scripture and it is to this authority (alone) we must submit.

I believe with every ounce of my soul that all of scripture is infallible. I do not believe that man is capable of infallibly interpreting every passage. But, and here’s the key, we are given enough to be held accountable. There will always be differences but are the differences such that without them there would be no salvation?

You seem to place the Protestant into a position where they have nobody above themselves to go to when questions arise in the mind concerning scripture. Isn’t this where God himself is to be leaned on for answers? Again though, scripture in the NT is easily enough to come to the understanding on how to reach salvation and that is the ultimate gift.

 

[fhansen]

The question, among Protestants only, is whether or not baptism is even necessary, or if faith, alone, is the only requirement. And both questions arise solely (ironically) due to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Anyway, I’ve probably heard most of the arguments before- back and forth, round and round.

 

[MCA]

We affirm faith alone that produces works because faith alone never goes alone. Is it necessary baptism for salvation? I answer: Is it necessary to love your neighboor? What I mean by this is that any christian will do it, it is a must. So all christians must do it.

 

[MCA]

The crux of Sola Scriptura goes back to my 2 points. I and other Protestants believe all that is needed for salvation itself is found in scripture, and we are held accountable to that. We believe God himself gave us scripture and it is to this authority (alone) we must submit

Matterial sufficency of scripture. In this round table an orthodox a catholic and a protestant speak about it. It is interesting.

 

[fhansen]

We affirm faith alone that produces works because faith alone never goes alone. Is it necessary baptism for salvation? I answer: Is it necessary to love your neighboor? What I mean by this is that any christian will do it, it is a must. So all christians must do it.

And here another critical difference comes up. The right understanding of justification or righteousness for man necessarily involves love, as the most important virtue out of faith and hope. Such that the Church actually teaches, “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love”, quoting St John of the Cross. Correct understanding of God’s will is what this is all about-and why SS fails.

 

[fhansen]

The RCC teaches the material sufficiency of Scripture. But that in no way guarantees correct interpretation and understanding; it only says that Scripture contains and supports it.