So has this thread become a debate about Sola Scriptura? I thought that it started out with an incorrect definition. Then a request for me to provide one. Then people seemed to dispute the right of Protestants to decide what they actually mean by Sola Scriptura…now it seems to be an argument against Sola Scriptura…
thessalonian:
Semper,
So do you agree with these statements by Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theologicial Seminary?
“Whatever’s in the Bible we have to believe but we can’t go one step beyond the Bible.”
In complaining about a couple of Lutheran theologians he says:
He says:
“There is no particular scripture that says I can’t do this so I can do it and if I can do it I should do it. I would argue that this is the reversal of a proper biblical and theological logic”.
What I find humorous about these quotes it that Billy Graham, another Southern Baptist, travels the world, doing altar calls. Yet oddly enough I can’t find anywhere in the bible that there is one becoming a Christian doing anything like an altar call that is not immidately baptized. The Peter Bar Jona crusades of Acts 2 and 4 baptized 7000 IMMEDIATELY. We have the conversions of the families of Lydia, Cornelius, and the Jailor. No sinners prayer and then your in. They had to get water on them first.
So if you agree with Mr. Mohler, that he has Sola Scriptura right then show me altar calls without baptisms in the Bible. Otherwise you need to condemn his statements as false teaching of one of the three tenants on which Protestantism stands or falls. (trip
)
Peace.
I do agree with Dr. Mohler. I do not agree with Billy Graham. Problem solved. Altar calls are unbiblical and started under the revivalistic heretic Charles Finney. So is the sinner’s prayer. You wrongly assume that all Southern Baptists have the exact same beliefs and practices. Our denomination is more of a missionary organization than anything else. Every local church is autonomous. Even if Dr. Mohler were president of the SBC, he couldn’t tell Billy Graham what to do.
It seems to me that your argument is: Southern Baptists believe Sola Scriptura. Some Southern Baptists have practices not found in the Bible. Therefore Sola Scriptura cannot be true.
This is really flawed.
Would you accept this argument?
My father has been involved in adultery and is in the process of divorcing my mother. His priest is aware of this. My father continues to receive the Eucharist. Therefore, transubstantiation is false.
These premises are true by the way. But just because someone violates the teachings he claims to believe does not mean that those teachings are false. If I wanted to dispute transubstatiation, I would need to go elsewhere for arguments.
jusher7281:
If sola Scriptura is really true, that the Bible is our sole authority on matters of faith and morals, what happened to the first four centuries of Christians who didn’t even know what constituted the Bible, not to mention those who lived during the next 11 centuries before the printing press was invented? Was there no way for them to know Christ’s teachings? Yes, there was. Christ established His Church (the Catholic Church) to be a living, infallible teacher, so we wouldn’t have to rely on our own fallible interpretation of Scripture.
This is not an exegetical argument. Pragmatism is not good theology.
viktor aleksndr:
Protestants insist of Sola Scriptura because they don’t have Traditions that originates from the Aposltles. The New Testament stopped on the at most the 10th century. It is like the Old Testament that could have stopped until Jesus came so it was continued. The Catholic Tradition is like the New Testament (of the New Testament) as to the New Testament to the Old Testament.
Protestants believe that the NT is the apostolic tradition. It is the writting of the apostles and their close associates. It ended when the apostolic age ended. I’m not sure what you are trying to get at with this post.
Rand Al'Thor:
So if the words “pope”, “immaculate conception”, and “assumption” are not in the Bible (and therefore obviously unbiblical and false) then if we are not commanded to use the Bible
I don’t know what Protestants make the argument that if a word isn’t in the Bible, then it is false and unbiblical, but that’s a very shoddy argument indeed. I would argue that these concepts are unbiblical because they are contrary to the teachings of the Bible.
And, by the way, we are commanded to use the Scriptures (Psalm 1:2; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim 3:15-17)
Sola Scriptura = anyone can be right about the interpretation of Scripture but Catholics.
No, Catholics are right sometimes on some issues.
DeFide:
It seems that if any Protestant tries to tell you what Scripture is or what it means, they’d be setting themselves up as an outside authority and would be violating “Sola Scriptura”.
Well, this shows that you misunderstand Sola Scriptura.
A Protestant who sets himself up as infallible in his interpretation is wrong. However, through proper grammatico-historical exegesis, we can know what the Bible means.
