Sola Scriptura help please

[Jim_Dandy]

Yeah, I’m not going for a “one-size-fits-all” definition, I’m just looking for a starting point from where I can begin creating a defense against it. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

May I suggest the book, Not by Scripture Alone, A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, edited by Robert Sungenis, foreword by Peter Kreeft, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara, CA, 1977, nihil obstat, imprimatur. The contributors are philosopher Philip Blosser, Ph.D.; professer of Religious Studies Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D.; apologist Joseph A. Gallegos; apologist, editor of Envoy Magazine, and author Patrick Madrid; author and EWTN anchor Rev. Mitchell Pacwa, S.J., Ph.D.; writer and apologist Mark P. Shea; editor of Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, the Very Rev. Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D.

This book may be the most thorough examination and rebuttal of Sola Scriptura ever compiled. Extraordinary. Excellent.

Jim Dandy

 

[look3467]

This is not what I was talking about at all . . . I’m asking if you would be independent of a Church if Christ Himself established the Church.

The church that Christ established is a spiritual body of believers.

The physical church, which ever that may be, is controlled by people, be it priests, Bishops, Popes, Pastors, Elders, and deacons.

And they are all subject to their interpretation.

And yes, I am a member of that Church that Christ established, being that I am in the body of Christ.
Ref: Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

You see, it is the spiritual Christ that is born within each one of us that link us together into one body.

Some may choose to worship God one way while other choose to do otherwise.

The link is still the same.

I honestly do not understand what you mean by being “independent in my own state” and you being “free” . . . could you explain

?

Being a god (lower case g) is being independent, but not free until Christ paid the price.

How are you sure that it is authentic?

The pattern is set in the bible, from the front cover to the end cover.

And I believe it in faith.

Blessings, AJ

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

The church that Christ established is a spiritual body of believers.

The physical church, which ever that may be, is controlled by people, be it priests, Bishops, Popes, Pastors, Elders, and deacons.

And they are all subject to their interpretation.

And yes, I am a member of that Church that Christ established, being that I am in the body of Christ.
Ref: Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

You see, it is the spiritual Christ that is born within each one of us that link us together into one body.

Some may choose to worship God one way while other choose to do otherwise.

The link is still the same.

?

Being a god (lower case g) is being independent, but not free until Christ paid the price.

The pattern is set in the bible, from the front cover to the end cover.

And I believe it in faith.

Blessings, AJ

2 things:

1. Remember to whom Paul was speaking. He was speaking to those tho he was given authority over as an apostle. He was speaking to, in effect, his diocese. He told them the same thing Catholic Bishops say today “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word [of mouth], or by our epistle [letter].”

He was not saying “Interpret our letters however you choose to take them”.

1. did you really just call yourself a “god” made free by the price paid by Christ? I just have to check here, cause that is SCARY…

FSC

 

[look3467]

1. Remember to whom Paul was speaking. He was speaking to those tho he was given authority over as an apostle. He was speaking to, in effect, his diocese. He told them the same thing Catholic Bishops say today “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word [of mouth], or by our epistle [letter].”

Is that speaking to you to? Are those words not applicable to you to? Must those words have to be interpreted for you so that you may get the right and proper understanding?

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Are you not standing fast in your liberty? Or, are you still entangled, as like they were then, in the laws and regulations imposed on them by the many laws and traditions of their spiritual leaders of their time?

If you are not liberated yet, how can you, today, not then, stand fast?

Standing fast means holding fast to something that one has acquired, not wanting to let go of it.

He was not saying “Interpret our letters however you choose to take them”.

I guess…those simple words can not be interpreted by you to mean today: Jesus has made me free, I will hold fast to that?

1. did you really just call yourself a “god” made free by the price paid by Christ? I just have to check here, cause that is SCARY…

Nothing is scary once the thing is understood.

I did not call my self a god, Jesus did and God did.

Ref: Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Notice the reference to I?

Jesus was quoting the following scripture: Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Jesus said “I said”, by quoting God saying “I said”.

Do I need that interpreted? Or, can I deduce that Jesus and God are one?

One that has the ability to choose between good and evil “has become as like one of us”.

“Like one of us” does it not mean, like as gods?

Ref: Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Better yet, exchange my word “as like” to “as one”, really hitting home the truth.

Being “as one of us” makes us as gods, as in “I said, Ye are gods”, thus the separation from God, leading us to death necessitating a rescue from that lost state.

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

If you read those scriptural words quoted, do you think that you can not understand without someone else interpreting those same scriptures to you, the love of God towards you?

To have liberty in Christ, we will have reached for the fruit of that other tree quote:…" lest he put forth his hand,(reach) and take also of the tree of life, and eat,(Understand) and live (Gain liberty in which Christ has made us free) for ever: (Receive the free gift of life and live for ever.

Blessings, AJ

 

[jericho777]

What is Sola Scriptura?

One issue that seems to come about with modern traditions is that these traditions are based on previous traditions, which were based on previous traditions, and so on and so forth back through the centuries; and it so happens that the original tradition, which turned into some modern tradition, was not in complete harmony with the Bible to begin with, thus rendering all subsequent traditions unbiblical.

That’s why I believe it is important to go back to first century christianity to re establish our faith. I don’t want to “reform” anything I want to “restore” our faith.

 

[look3467]

That’s why I believe it is important to go back to first century christianity to re establish our faith. I don’t want to “reform” anything I want to “restore” our faith.

The transition from the Jewish ways to the new Gospel ways of grace were quite trying for those folks because the Jewish indoctrination was the only source of Godly information they had to go by.

When Jesus came, He came to change all that, from the law to grace.

Other than the two commandments given by Jesus, there were no other issues addressed, save those which had to do with breaking away from the bondage of the law.

Issues like gays, abortions etc.

Those issues we learn to address as the spirit of God gives us guidance.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

That’s why I believe it is important to go back to first century christianity to re establish our faith. I don’t want to “reform” anything I want to “restore” our faith.

Interesting number you chose 777.

You know God doubles thing twice before He brings things to pass?

7 = number of completion as in the creation story of Adam
doubled twice is another two sevens,

Second seven the number of completion of Jesus at the cross when He said “It is finished”.

The third = is our number when we find our rest in Jesus and our life is complete in Him.

My views only.

Blessings, AJ

 

[fermat]

Issues like gays, abortions etc.

Those issues we learn to address as the spirit of God gives us guidance.

Blessings, AJ

Ok, so what are we to believe then? Is homosexual behavior ok, or not? Is abortion ok, or not?

 

[look3467]

Ok, so what are we to believe then? Is homosexual behavior ok, or not? Is abortion ok, or not?

That’s for you to decide. You have to come to your own conclusion based on what you have read in the bible and how God gives you understanding.

If you belong to an organization that is against those issues, you most likely be against them as well.

Can you give me one sin that Jesus did not become?

Blessings, AJ

 

[zach_dunn]

Well maybe this is just me , but essential means you can not be Christian unless you believe such-and-such.

So if you are Protestant and holding Sola Scriptura as an essential then you have just eternally damned all Catholics and Orthodox. Since the vast majority of Protestants do not consider Catholics and Orthodox as nonChristian, then a mainstream working definition of Sola Scriptura (which I thought was what you are after) would not hold it as essential.

I see what you’re saying, and I guess what I’m trying to get at is this: if you go by the Bible alone vs. Bible and Tradition (both being considered true revelation), you get very different ideas on what is “essential”, thus it is essential to know which to go by, Bible or Bible & Tradition . . . can you kind of see what I’m getting at?

 

[zach_dunn]

I have heard all the reasoning behind beliefs that disagree with me. What do you think I have been doing on here the last three years?

Trying to convert us all of course!

Roughly 30 percent of the world is Christian. 70 percent is not. I believe that Jesus is the truth the way and the Life and no one can come to the Father except through him.

So do you think Christ is incapable of saving someone who doesn’t call themselves Christian or simply won’t?

But that is where I get my 70 percent figure from. Your thoughts?

Well, first things first: I don’t think that just because you are not a Christian, you’re damned. What are your thoughts about that?

 

[zach_dunn]

Perhaps you are right. Then again, like you trust the early councils on these issues, so do I.

Just how much do you trust them? Do you consider them infallible or is it only the Bible that is infallible in your eyes?

The nature of Christ - fully God, fully man - the Incarnation.
The Church - where the means of grace are made available for us.
The communion of saints I’ll have to think about.

Ha, gotcha! But I’m still curious as to why it matters if Christ was born of a virgin . . . how does that have an affect on my salvation?

How do you know that?

Mt 16:18; 18:18; Lk 10:16; Jn 14:16; 16:13; 20:21-23; 21:15-18 . . . these among others.

No, I meant they are willing to put aside their personal belief in deference to the Magisterium, because, as you stated above, they have faith that the Church is protected from error.

I suppose I agree with that!

 

[zach_dunn]

Did the ECF’s privately interpret?
As I asked above, how do you know that the interpretation of the Catholic Church is infallible? So it comes down to this, I trust the confessions are a right reflection of scripture. It is an honest trust, based on faith, and includes a reliance on Grace if I am wrong.

The ECF’s didn’t necessarily privately interpret but they are not the Magisterium, if you poked at me enough I’d be willing to say that they did privately interpret. Their interpretations are orthodox so far as they are inline with Church’s interpretation. We don’t really go to them for doctrine, they are kind of a way to see what was believed historically, but the Magisterium is the one with the God-given duty to interpret revelation as a whole.

To one degree or another, we all privately interpret. It is, in part, the basis upon which we determine which communion we link ourselves to. It is at least one the reason you are not Orthodox or Anglican.

I suppose, but that’s not really privately interpreting Scripture, it’s more privately interpreting history, isn’t it?

Luther’s interpretations are his own. Lutherans are not held to Luther, but to scripture and the confessions. Sola Scriptura holds Luther accountable also.

If you are held to the confessions, aren’t you held to Luther? Forgive me if this is a silly question, but, did Luther write the confessions himself?

 

[fermat]

That’s for you to decide. You have to come to your own conclusion based on what you have read in the bible and how God gives you understanding.

If you belong to an organization that is against those issues, you most likely be against them as well.

Can you give me one sin that Jesus did not become?

Blessings, AJ

Yikes, man! Abortion is either wrong or it isn’t. Homosexual activity is either wrong or it isn’t. You can be relative on these positions. God will not give one person a different understanding of these issues than another.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I see what you’re saying, and I guess what I’m trying to get at is this: if you go by the Bible alone vs. Bible and Tradition (both being considered true revelation), you get very different ideas on what is “essential”,

I don’t get why this is necessarily true…at least with the more nuanced versions of “Bible alone”.

But then it all depends on what exactly you mean by “going by Bible alone” as opposed to “Bible and Tradition”. And it depends on what you define as “tradition” and how you believe tradition is passed on 2000 years or so after the fact.

thus it is essential to know which to go by, Bible or Bible & Tradition . . . can you kind of see what I’m getting at?

…but not essential as far as one’s eternal life with Jesus Christ.

 

[look3467]

Yikes, man! Abortion is either wrong or it isn’t. Homosexual activity is either wrong or it isn’t. You can be relative on these positions. God will not give one person a different understanding of these issues than another.

I have my views on those issues based on my understandings.

God came in the form of a man to save that which was lost.

Now the question should be asked, is, what constitute that which was lost?

Mankind as a whole.

Now, if God is to save that which was lost, He must save the whole.

The whole of mankind (All of humanity) is saved as one body, or one body for all and all for one body.

This way, God has to, in Jesus, go back to the beginning commencing with Adam and Eve, to the time of Jesus, and after Jesus and save the whole.

Why is it that way?

Because mankind of it’s self can not under it’s own righteousness meet the righteousness of God to be saved.

Thus, Gods righteousness in a man, Jesus, fulfills that measure for all of us and grants, get that?, grants gives us as a free gift His righteousness over ours, enabling us to use His righteousness to enter heaven.

I know this is in contrast to what you are used to believing, but that is found, clearly stated in the bible, to where an individual seeking God will find it.

Having said all that, I can now explain my views on abortion , Gay issues and any other issue presented to me for evaluation.

Gay issue: The bible (In the book of Romans) clearly speaks against it as a hindrance towards achieving a closeness with God.

Abortion: The bible does not speak to that directly, but is an issue that should inflame a believer to reject it, who treasures a God given life.

But than again, if God died for the whole, what sin can God not forgive?

What does happen is if these things which hinder a closeness with God, or the coming to God, will only meet the consequences of the world.

There is an example in the new testament (A believer in a church body) of a man who was caught having un-natural relations with his mother.

The instructions given for that man was: 1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

You see, the part where it says: “that the spirit may be saved”, is at the day Jesus paid the price for the mans unrighteousness.

Read the rest of the story you 'll find: The mans restoration. 2Co 2:6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.
2Co 2:7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
2Co 2:8 Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.

You see, God in Jesus saved His soul, yet because of his sin, he was ostricized to the world for a spanking, sort of speak.

We all are accountable to our selves, either for blessings or punishment.

The world, who is in the world? Satan? The world will destroy us if we allow it.

That is why we need to be in touch with God for His protection.

Your church is not responsible for your actions, but you are.

So, the decisions you make are met with blessings or cursings. What ye sow that shall ye reap.

Blessings, AJ

 

[zach_dunn]

I don’t get why this is necessarily true…at least with the more nuanced versions of “Bible alone”.

But then it all depends on what exactly you mean by “going by Bible alone” as opposed to “Bible and Tradition”. And it depends on what you define as “tradition” and how you believe tradition is passed on 2000 years or so after the fact.

By Tradition, I of course mean the Catholic understanding of Tradition which states that it is equally revelation, comparable to Scripture. I think what the real problem with the issue is trying to divide God’s truth into categories such as “essential” and “non-essential”, all the truths affirmed in revelation are God’s truth and must be believed by all, right? I feel uncomfortable when people get into the business of saying you do or don’t have to believe this or that . . .

…but not essential as far as one’s eternal life with Jesus Christ.

It is if two different modes of reveal two different sets of doctrine that are considered “essential”

 

[look3467]

“Essential” is a matter of interpretation.

The problem as I found out is not being able to define with a clear understanding the works of God.

We have the works of Moses, the law introduced, the High priests, the law (name removed by moderator)lemented and Jesus, the law fulfilled and the introduction of the grace of God towards all mankind and a new creation ending the old as it was.

In the process of defining those works, God has allowed humanity to experience the turmoil of self discovery in its progress to grow spiritual.

“Tribulations ye shall have” Joh 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

There is no denial that we will have tribulations, the secreat is that in Christ we will have peace in the midst of tribulations.

When I post, I try never to speak against anybody’s beliefs, for I reason that their at a point in their beliefs that God know and gives revelation according to their spiritual growth.

And:
Eph 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

Blessings, AJ

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Just how much do you trust them? Do you consider them infallible or is it only the Bible that is infallible in your eyes?

I am not Jon nor am I Lutheran but if I may speculate I don’t think Jon would use the term “infallible” in regards to the Bible. Inspired, inerrant yes, infallible probably not.

As far as the councils go I will let Jon speak to that but I have heard him say (or, rather, read what he wrote) that the ecumenical councils and the creeds are, in his eyes, as close to inerrant as men’s writing can get.

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

God came in the form of a man to save that which was lost.

God didn’t come in the “form” of a man. Christ was the “Word made flesh” Jn 1:14. He was a man, a divine being, both 100% God and 100% man.

God bless you AJ