sola scriptura

[tweetiebird]

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

 

[dee_burk]

Because i can read scriptures at home.

The homily or preaching should be reinforcing the Word of God into our present lives and we pray that the interpretation for the homily or preaching has been influenced by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JonNC]

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

Because that’s not what sola scriptura means. The “sola” in sola scriptura indicates that scripture is - alone - the final norm. Councils, creeds and confessions are not equal to scripture but secondary to it. It does not mean other things are not useful, important, even critical.

Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church (Lutheran, in my case) of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachers and teachings, doctrines and dogma accountable.
It does not, therefore, exclude teachers and teachings, doctrine and dogma. It does not exclude the pulpit or the mass, be it Lutheran or Catholic.
Further, scripture gives the Church the authority to teach, and teaching comes from the pulpit (and other places).

Jon

 

[Adamski]

Sola scriptora question for an Anabaptist

“where in the bible do you see children waiting to the age of reason”

 

[Julia_Mae]

Further, scripture gives the Church the authority to teach, and teaching comes from the pulpit (and other places).

Jon

The Church precedes Scripture. The authority came from Jesus Christ, not from a writing. The writing is a later record of that occurrence. The writing, aka “scripture” gives no authority to anyone for anything.

The Church decided what would be in the Canon of Writings. That is: the people with the authority given by Jesus Christ chose what comprises the Canon of Scripture (aka the Bible).

The Church, the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church came first.

 

[JonNC]

The Church precedes Scripture. The authority came from Jesus Christ, not from a writing. The writing is a later record of that occurrence. The writing, aka “scripture” gives no authority to anyone for anything.

The Church decided what would be in the Canon of Writings. That is: the people with the authority given by Jesus Christ chose what comprises the Canon of Scripture (aka the Bible).

The Church, the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church came first.

But that isn’t the thrust of the OP. The Op is not asking for a detailed comparison and dialogue between the practice of sola scriptura, and the Catholic “three-legged stool”. The OP was asking why we should even bother with homiletics, etc.

I’ve often dialogued with Catholic members about SS vs Scripture and Tradition. I’m just not sure that this is the intent of the OP.

Jon

 

[Edmundus1581]

…
I’ve often dialogued with Catholic members about SS vs Scripture and Tradition. I’m just not sure that this is the intent of the OP.

Jon

Jon, I’ve found your explanations of the Lutheran interpretation of Sola Scriptura to be interesting and informative, and they also help me to understand SS in other parts of the Protestantism.

However, not all SS advocates seem to interpret it this way. Most of the Protestants I’ve met (seem to me to) advocate a very strict view of the Bible alone is the only source for Christian teaching. They cite Revelations 22:18-19. I have sometimes wanted to ask them exactly the same question as the OP does here, ie. when you preach a sermon are you not adding to scripture? However, I have not actually discussed these matters in any depth with them, so I may be misunderstanding their position.

But, once again, thankyou for your helpful posts on the nuances in Sola Scriptura.

 

[Truthstalker]

Because that’s not what sola scriptura means. The “sola” in sola scriptura indicates that scripture is - alone - the final norm. Councils, creeds and confessions are not equal to scripture but secondary to it. It does not mean other things are not useful, important, even critical.

Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church (Lutheran, in my case) of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachers and teachings, doctrines and dogma accountable.
It does not, therefore, exclude teachers and teachings, doctrine and dogma. It does not exclude the pulpit or the mass, be it Lutheran or Catholic.
Further, scripture gives the Church the authority to teach, and teaching comes from the pulpit (and other places).

Jon

Good explanation, Jon

 

[PJM]

=tweetiebird;10238502]I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

Here from The Bible is your answer

Jn. 20:30-31 "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.]*** NOT everything is IN the Bible ***

2nd. Peter 1: 20-21 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Romans 13: 1-4 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment"

**Acts.20: 28 **“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God [SINGULAR/ the CC] which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

**Luke 11:28 **“But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it” [THIS MEANS READ AND EXPLAINED!]

Eph.3: 9 to 12 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him

**Rom.1: 5 **“through whom we [ALONE] have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,”

Rom.10: 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

The KEYS to heaven were Given ONLY to Peter and the CC: here’s WHY

Mt. 28:16-20 "16] And the eleven disciples [Apostles] went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying**: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth**. Going therefore, teach ye [YOU ONLY HAVE THIS MANDATE] all nations;[REQUIRES PAPAL SUCCESSION OF AUTHORITY TO FULFILL THIS COMMAND] baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

So the Church MUST TEACH and ALONE is Empowered an protected to do so!

John 14:16-17 FILLED in John 20:21-22… again ONLY the CC

Thanks for asking:thumbsup:

 

[JonNC]

=Edmundus1581;10239084]Jon, I’ve found your explanations of the Lutheran interpretation of Sola Scriptura to be interesting and informative, and they also help me to understand SS in other parts of the Protestantism.

Thanks, Edmundus, for the kind words. Would it be arrogant of me to say that, since Luther in particular and the Lutheran reformers in general receive the blame/credit for sola scriptura, that ours should be the default understanding of the practice? If so, forgive my arrogance.

However, not all SS advocates seem to interpret it this way. Most of the Protestants I’ve met (seem to me to) advocate a very strict view of the Bible alone is the only source for Christian teaching. They cite Revelations 22:18-19. I have sometimes wanted to ask them exactly the same question as the OP does here, ie. when you preach a sermon are you not adding to scripture?

To the extent that they believe as you say, the argument can be made that preachers should not preach, that statements of faith are excluded. I think the best evidence for our position is the very fact that we are a confessional Church, defending the creeds and even the early councils, and that we see these and our confessions as right reflections of not only scripture, but of historic Church teaching, though I know the last of these would be disputed by Catholics.

However, I have not actually discussed these matters in any depth with them, so I may be misunderstanding their position.

And neither one of us would judge their position without dialogue, but I know that there are those who practice what, as a distinction, is called solo scriptura.

But, once again, thankyou for your helpful posts on the nuances in Sola Scriptura.

Again, thanks for your kind words.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Good explanation, Jon

Thanks.
I’ve had practice.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I gotta consider Sola scriptura in both forms impossible.

Scripture in of it self cannot be the highest authoirty because we are reliant on something else. IE the holy spirit as protestants would claim. The problem is that the holy spirit doesn’t give a consistent interpretation among protestants and I think the problem is solved with a more rigourously defined Ecclesiastical structure, that God reveals the meaning of scripture through the church via tradition.

Nor can scripture be said to be alone sufficient in the full sense, that is while scripture contains everything needed for salvation every protestant will admit that the correct reading through God’s spirit is what is sufficient. In of itself the bible is no garuntee of salvation, you need something else.

 

[CopticChristian]

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

Tweetie,

This sounds like an AA/12 step Big Book meeting to me…

 

[tweetiebird]

I am being totally serious. I usually go when a friend invites me to a service.

I went today.

It was a nice service. But what I really got was about 3 bible verses, and a bunch of jokes

and some serious discussion. But I really dont think it was bible centered.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

tweetiebird,

There is a problem that makes it difficult to answer your question, and that is that Sola Scriptura means different things to different people, and many of the current understandings of Sola Scriptura are not consistent with that of the Reformation. JonNC has already given excellent comments on this from the Lutheran perspective.

Though I am an Anglican in TEC, I think this quote from Emmaus Anglican (Anglican Church in North America) expresses very well the relationship between Holy Scripture and Tradition:

***“The Anglican Communion,” Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote, “has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ’s Church from the beginning.”

It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to “the faith once delivered to the saints.”***

This belief that the Church has no authority to innovate is an important one. In fact, a zeal to “innovate” has caused a great deal of trouble within The Episcopal Church—a topic for another thread–but an example of the woes that come from departing from “the faith once delivered to the saints.”

While the Holy Spirit does speak to us when reading and meditating upon Holy Scripture; the idea that one person can read and interpret Scripture in a vacuum is a late invention. You will find no place in Holy Scripture that instructs Christians to do this. The Gospel was transmitted orally long before it was penned. Oral Tradition was and is a vital part of Jewish history and practice; and was and is a vital part of Christian history and practice.

So, I think reading Scripture without a sermon or homily is not the best situation when we gather to worship; and doing so would be a serious departure from the Apostolic Church.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Here from The Bible is your answer. . . .

PJM,
Haven’t bumped into you for awhile. Gotta say your post hurt my ears…:manvspc:

No need to shout.

Anna

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I gotta consider Sola scriptura in both forms impossible.

Scripture in of it self cannot be the highest authoirty because we are reliant on something else. IE the holy spirit as protestants would claim. The problem is that the holy spirit doesn’t give a consistent interpretation among protestants and I think the problem is solved with a more rigourously defined Ecclesiastical structure, that God reveals the meaning of scripture through the church via tradition.

I understand your point well here, Ignatian. I’m just not sure that it bears itself out here in reality. May I try and illustrate here by example?

The argument is made that Scripture is insufficient as a rule of faith because there are multiple interpretations of it. Therefore, there is a mandate for an infallible church body to definitively instruct us, via Tradition, as to what the entire correct meaning of Scripture is.

On a surface level, this makes sense. However, that is not the exact situation that we have in modern Christianity. For there is also a set number (not as numerous, I grant you) of different interpretations of Tradition as well. The fact that there are, using the same criteria listed above, would also indicate that either Tradition, or an infallible teachibg authority, is also insufficient as a rule of faith.

Nor can scripture be said to be alone sufficient in the full sense, that is while scripture contains everything needed for salvation every protestant will admit that the correct reading through God’s spirit is what is sufficient. In of itself the bible is no garuntee of salvation, you need something else

Point taken. However, as sola scriptura is a practice designed for use by the church, it is already granted that Scripture and its interpretation is something that is done within the context of “something else.” If you don’t have the church, there’s nothing to implement sola scriptura.

 

[CopticChristian]

I understand your point well here, Ignatian. I’m just not sure that it bears itself out here in reality. May I try and illustrate here by example?
**
The argument is made that Scripture is insufficient as a rule of faith because there are multiple interpretations of it.** Therefore, there is a mandate for an infallible church body to definitively instruct us, via Tradition, as to what the entire correct meaning of Scripture is.

On a surface level, this makes sense. However, that is not the exact situation that we have in modern Christianity. For there is also a set number (not as numerous, I grant you) of different interpretations of Tradition as well. The fact that there are, using the same criteria listed above, would also indicate that either Tradition, or an infallible teachibg authority, is also insufficient as a rule of faith.

Point taken. However, as sola scriptura is a practice designed for use by the church, it is already granted that Scripture and its interpretation is something that is done within the context of “something else.” If you don’t have the church, there’s nothing to implement sola scriptura.

Gaelic,

The argument is that using Scripture as a rule of Faith is an invention as you say of Modern Christianity, not that it is insufficient. It was never the rule of Faith for anyone prior to the year 1500. You are correct this is a modern notion however I believe that Christianity like Christ is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow…there is no such thing as modern Christianity.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

The argument is that using Scripture as a rule of Faith is an invention as you say of Modern Christianity, not that it is insufficient. It was never the rule of Faith for anyone prior to the year 1500. You are correct this is a modern notion however I believe that Christianity like Christ is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow…there is no such thing as modern Christianity.

Coptic, I was responding to a specific point made by Ignatian regarding the sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of faith.

Blessings.

 

[lyrikal]

Sola Scriptura is basically a heresy to the Church Fathers. Some Church Fathers believed that Scripture was **sufficient **as long as it is being interpreted THROUGH the eyes of Tradition BY the Church. Anyone picking up the Bible and interpreting it on his own and coming up with doctrines that went against those of the Church would be deemed a heretic by the Early Church. Other Church Fathers believed that Scripture was not at all sufficient and that Oral Tradition is not just a means for interpretation but another source of revelation. Other Church Fathers believed both.