Sola scriptura and corrections?

[fide]

What you are describing is Solo Scriptura. Here is a link that might help you understand the difference between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura.

So… who has the authority to decide what each of these two terms precisely means, and where did he get this authority?

 

[lanman87]

who has the authority to decide what each of these two terms precisely means, and where did he get this authority?

There have been several books written by Theologians/Pastors/Teachers concerning the difference and has become accepted terms to demonstrate the different approaches to scripture within bodies that use the classical term Sola Scriptura. I sure the writer isn’t claiming authority to define the terms but is presenting terms that have already been defined and accepted by his faith community.

As in most things, authority is derived from those who accept the teaching.

 

[MCA]

TY for the resource brother. James White seems pretty anticatholic and I am philocatholic so I dont expect too much from him.

God bless

 

[po18guy]

You seek another pastor - one who agrees with both scripturally and politically with you.

 

[drac16]

It’s very simple. Before I read the Bible, I ask the Holy Spirit for protection (protection from any satanic or ego based influences). If you don’t ask for protection, you’ll never know if your interpretation is coming from your own ego or from Satan. If I ask for protection, I can know that God is guiding me.

 

[ATraveller]

who self interpret the scripture

Sola Scriptura isn’t about self-interpretation. This isn’t even close to what Martin Luther had in mind.
The Bible can’t be approached from a blank slate. There is a body of knowledge from the Early Church Fathers that must be consulted.

 

[Bithynian]

Different manuscripts say different things. That is why you see such a difference in translations from one to another.

The textual variants are minimal. Some manuscripts have ὅ (instead of ἅ), some insert φρονεῖν; our current critical text has neither. None of these significantly impacts the plain, grammatical meaning of the clause.

Nonetheless, interpretation of 1 Cor 4:6 has been somewhat elusive: there’s a diversity of interpretations between Catholics, between Protestants, between Catholics and Protestants. Primarily this is because it’s ambiguous as to what Paul is referring when he wrote ἃ γέγραπται.

But this is a theological issue rather than a translation issue. All contemporary Catholic and (nearly all) Protestant translations use some variation of “not beyond that which has been written”, which is the plain grammatical meaning of the clause.

Dr. Sungenis

His doctoral studies were completed via correspondence from an unaccredited institution in Vanuatu. Not what I would regard as a benchmark for any legitimate scholar of the Scriptures.

 

[fide]

I sure the writer isn’t claiming authority to define the terms but is presenting terms that have already been defined and accepted by his faith community.

As in most things, authority is derived from those who accept the teaching.

Well, the Church rests upon divine authority, and receives Apostolic Tradition - and hence Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the magisterium - from Him. The question of “Sola Scriptura” - including its definition and its validity, whatever it means, is an interesting one. I find many non-Catholics who rest their confidence in “sola scriptura”, become very vague on the issue of interpretation of the Scripture that is the bedrock of their faith. Differences of interpretations among them seem to get filed under “non-essentials”.

Besides the fact that “sola scriptura” in not “in Scripture”. Neither is the Table of Contents of the Bible - that is, the inclusive list of canonical books - included in an inspired book.

 

[lanman87]

The question of “Sola Scriptura” - including its definition and its validity, whatever it means, is an interesting one. I find many non-Catholics who rest their confidence in “sola scriptura”, become very vague on the issue of interpretation of the Scripture that is the bedrock of their faith.

The principle of Sola Scriptura is very simple. God’s word is perfect and humans are not. We are all subject to sinfulness, individual prejudice, societal pressures, political pressures, family pressures, cultural pressures, preconceived notions, personal experiences and so forth. This is true of every person who ever lived, except for Christ himself. Which includes all the Early Church Fathers, Bishops, Popes, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Billy Graham and you and me.

Christ gave His gospel to the Apostles and told them to teach it to the world. They did this first in orally as they went from town to town preaching the Gospel of Christ. Then the teachings were recording in the written Gospels and further given in letters to the churches that was recognized by Christians as authentic teachings of the Gospel message and worthy of being called the God Breathed Scripture.

All of us are correct in doctrine only in as much as we hold the teaching of Christ that was given to the Apostles. If we deviate from that teaching we are teaching a different gospel. The only way to know for sure if we are teaching the same gospel is to teach what is found in the God Breathed Scripture. Tradition is subject to the whims of men and change over time and the magisterium is subject to political, social, and culture pressure. (and sadly, history shows us it was also influenced by the desire to gain and maintain power and wealth)

Because we are still human and still prone to all the things mentioned above, there will always be differences in how we read and interpret the scriptures. However, that doesn’t mean that the Scriptures aren’t perfect and that they aren’t the ultimate “plumb line” that shows and teaches us the Gospel of Christ. If anything, our differences show us our human limitations and just how much we need God’s grace.

 

[fide]

Yes all humans are imperfect - and God is not imperfect. For this reason, God promised a fail-safe method of preserving the actual and true understanding of God’s divine revelation to humanity after the ascension of God the Son Incarnate from this world and to the Father. The fail-safe method is promised by God - hence, men can have confidence in Him, if they believe Him.

Jesus promised an infallible light of divine guidance “into all the Truth” after His ascension:

Joh 16:12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

This promise, made to the one ecclesial communion that Jesus established and thus empowered with the fullness of the true Gospel, He sent to “make disciples”. All who wish to fully become His disciples, have a divinely promised way to discern the way to go. There was and is One Church, given all, given all that was “to come”, and given divine guidance “into all the truth.”

It is very simple. Men are complicated; God is simple. Hard, costing all, but simple.

 

[lanman87]

Jesus promised an infallible light of divine guidance “into all the Truth” after His ascension:

Yes, the entire Gospel, the “Deposit of faith”, was completely and fully revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. There has been and never will be further revelation beyond what was revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. The Apostles passed that truth on orally and by writings. When the Apostles died and they ceased speaking orally. That teaching was then taught in the early church and the “Tradition” (teachings handed down from bishop to bishop) of the early church and the teachings scriptures was one and the same. To deviate from one was to deviate from the other.

As long as the Traditions that are handed down from the apostles and the teachings of scripture remain the same then there is no issue. However, in later centuries, the church decided that scripture and tradition were different sources of the Gospel message. As a result Traditions became, over time, whatever the Catholic church says it is with little regard to if they are taught in Scripture.

Sola Scriptura simply affirms that the Scriptures and the teaching of the Apostles is one and the same and contains the “rule of faith”. Tradition, on the other hand, has deviated from the rule of faith as theological conclusions and practices not taught in Scripture (hence not taught by the Apostles) began to overtake the church.

 

[fide]

And so all of that enables you to justify the countless denominations of Christian teachings and worship - in direct opposition to His prayer in Jn 17, that they [we] all be ONE. I get it. Many pleases modern man much better than ONE.

Do as you please. I have heard all this too many times.

 

[lanman87]

And so all of that enables you to justify the countless denominations of Christian teachings and worship - in direct opposition to His prayer in Jn 17, that they [we] all be ONE. I get it. Many pleases modern man much better than ONE.

If someone is truly “In Christ” then they are my brother or sister. What label they put on themselves or what tradition they follow doesn’t disconnect us, unless we make our label an idol and put our traditions above God. And one day, when we have been removed from the limitations of our humanness, we will be one in thought as well as one in the Spirit of Christ.

 

[fide]

The Spirit of Christ is One, as are those in Him, in His Spirit. The prayer of Jesus in Jn 17 is not mere platitude and sweet sentiment - it is truth, and the simple will of God.

Eph 4:1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
Eph 4:2 with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,
Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Division is not of the Lord. It is the pride of man, seeking his ease and freedom, that “decides” he knows better.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

We have a example of the early Church speaking infallibly in ACTS 15 council.

The Church is a living entity that did not die off with the apostles.

Why then, in a ever changing world, do you think all that authority/ability to speak infallibly, would ever cease while we are still on this planet??

And does not Peter warn us that private interpretation can lead to your own destruction? (2 Pet 3:16)

 

[JonNC]

brianjmc1:

who self interpret the scripture

Sola Scriptura isn’t about self-interpretation. This isn’t even close to what Martin Luther had in mind.
The Bible can’t be approached from a blank slate. There is a body of knowledge from the Early Church Fathers that must be consulted.

In fact, sola scriptura is quite the opposite of personal interpretation.
The Lutheran confessions:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone,

All teachers should be estimated and judge.
In other words, it isn’t up to personal interpretation.
Further dogma is determined by the Church, so it is the Church, in the Lutheran tradition, that applies sola scriptura as the final norm.

 

[lanman87]

We have a example of the early Church speaking infallibly in ACTS 15 council.

We have an example of the apostles (who were responsible for writing the New Testament) meeting and making a decision. We are not apostles and neither are Catholic Bishops or Presbyterian elders or Baptist Pastors.

The Church is a living entity that did not die off with the apostles.

Why then, in a ever changing world, do you think all that authority/ability to speak infallibly, would ever cease while we are still on this planet??

No, but divine revelation did die off with the apostles. God gave them the truth and they shared it with everyone, not just the elders/bishops. We are to believe in and live by that truth. We don’t have the authority to add to or change the Gospel that was given to the church.

When the Apostles chose leaders they admonished them to hold fast to their teachings. If anyone teaches another gospel then the church is to “let them be accursed”(according to Paul). What we see in scripture is a two way accountability. If there are those in the congregation who are not following the Gospel then the Elders are to correct the people. But if the Elders/Bishops aren’t following the Gospel then the people are to “let them be accursed”. If everyone is doing their job and holding each other accountable then the Gospel is maintained. Authority isn’t derived from an office of leadership. It is given to those who are recognized by the assembly(Church) as being called by God to teach the Gospel faithfully and lead the church with integrity.

This model in Scripture never indicates the that the Elders/Bishops are infallible in their teaching and actually indicates that we need to be careful that the leaders we follow are being true to the Gospel of Christ.

From Gotquestions.org

The idea of relying on the bare authority of men, rather than on reason and the evidence of nature and Scripture, also contradicts biblical principles. Repeatedly, mankind is told to follow evidence and the written Word (John 10:35; Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 2:15). We’re admonished to test spirits (1 John 4:1), confront false teachings (1 Timothy 6:3–4), and avoid bad reasoning (Colossians 2:8). At no time are we told to accept teaching simply because “the church” said so. In fact, we’re explicitly warned that even the most pious-seeming messengers can carry lies (2 Corinthians 11:13–14; Galatians 1:8). This means we need to be cautious and we are personally responsible for our beliefs (Hebrews 5:13; Romans 14:5).

 

[lanman87]

Why then, in a ever changing world, do you think all that authority/ability to speak infallibly, would ever cease while we are still on this planet??

There are also historical problems with infalliblity. For instance, From 1378 to 1417 there were two and for a time three Popes. Each Pope had Cardinals and Bishops that were loyal to them and supported them. So you not only had multiple Popes you had multiple magisteriums. If you were alive in 1400 which magisterium would you have followed? Which Pope would you have recognized had the ability to speak ex cathedra? How would you know which one is infallible? (as a lay Catholic, you probably would have followed whichever Pope your Bishop followed)

It took almost 40 years for this issue to be worked out and a single pope to finally emerge from the chaos. This was at a time when the average lifespan was under 60 years. An entire generation grew up and lived under multiple “infallible” Popes/Magisteriums.

 

[brianjmc1]

Thanks to all for have answered and have done so respectfully to each other!!!

Getting back to my original question; Then if there is ONE Truth, and the Lord promised he would not leave us orphaned, why all of the divisions to this day? Some Christian churches MUST be interpreting scripture wrong or at least not in full understanding of the Truth.

Look at the current issue with United Methodist Church - I am not judging them in any way shape or form…but looks like they are going to schism…

Note, I am in NO way supporting the Roman Catholic position nor denouncing all other christian religions. I want Non-Catholic explanations. For me, to understand a topic, it helps to understand both(or more) sides of the topic, not just the side that makes you comfortable.

Thanks again!
Brian

 

[lanman87]

why all of the divisions to this day?

Mankind is divisive by nature. And I would argue that many good God Fearing Catholics are divided in their beliefs as well, and that Catholicism allows for divergent beliefs within the Catholic church (but for some reason doesn’t allow for it outside of Catholicism)

For instance, there is great differences between Thomast and Molinist Catholics and I’ve seen some pretty heated arguments between Catholics on this very board. There is also a Charismatic movement in the Catholic church in which Catholics speak in tongues and engage in worship that is more like Hillsong than a somber Mass. I’ve seen Catholics on this board argue with each other over the validity of the Charismatic experiences. There are great differences in Catholicism over how to respond to the LGBT movement. Some want to be conciliatory and accepting and others want to be firm and resilient in not allowing active homosexuals to participate in the church.

Those are all the same differences you will find in American Evangelical denominations.

So while there is one Catholic organization I would argue that there are several virtual denominations within the Catholic church and as long as the Pope or a council doesn’t get involved in the debates and choose a side then all is good. And on the rare occasion the Pope or a council does get involved it usually results in a church split and each side claims to be the one true Catholic church. At that time the virtual denomination becomes an physical denomination (yes I work in I.T.) Examples are the Old Catholic church that split off after Vatican I and the sedevacantist that split off after Vatican II.

My point being that the Catholic church isn’t as unified as many Catholics portray. And not just among the laity but also among the Priest and Bishops.

But most Catholics and most non-Catholic Christians have one thing in common. Unless we are fascinated by theology, history and church culture at large, we don’t focus on things that aren’t in our circle of influence. We go to our local church and worship and serve and live out our faith the best we can and let others worry about and argue about theology and church government and so forth.