Sola Scriptura...

[PJM]

=Randy Carson;11499126]The writings of the Early Church Fathers prove otherwise.

Ignatius of Antioch

Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place.” (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp)

To speak of a universal church in every place is redundant; therefore, “Catholic Church” in this case is used as a proper noun.

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

Speaking of the universal church in Smyrna would not make sense; Catholic Church is being used as a proper noun.

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).

Universal Church throughout the world is redundant.

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23, [A.D. 350]).

“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is - for the others, sects of impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’ - nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” (Cathechetical Lectures 18:26, [A.D. 350])

Augustine

**"[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" **(Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [AD 397]).

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Nicely done Randy!

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

This is another misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. Regardless, some of us don’t celebrate Christmas. Some of us don’t celebrate “Easter” either. Some of us do. Freedom in Christ lets us make that choice. No one, BTW, really believes Jesus was born on Dec. 25th do they? One reason we don’t know the exact day is… it wasn’t recorded in scripture.

Ever hear the phrase “dont tell me, show me”? Show me how I have misrepresented Sola Scriptura. And I know not all Sola Scriptura advocates celebrate Christmas or Easter. I don’t know if anyone really believes that Jesus was born on December 25th but I know of at least one sect who’s pastor claims that December 25th is the day Jesus was “conceived” so to speak by the Holy Spirit in Mary.

Does freedom in Christ allow each different sect to determine how it chooses to interpret scripture?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Just thought I better stop by and say thanks all for replying, I am still slowly reading through the responses

I have had two 13hr shifts in the past two days so haven’t been able to come on much and now find that this thread is upto 12 pages

Oh boy…

 

[Kliska]

Ever hear the phrase “dont tell me, show me”? Show me how I have misrepresented Sola Scriptura. And I know not all Sola Scriptura advocates celebrate Christmas or Easter. I don’t know if anyone really believes that Jesus was born on December 25th but I know of at least one sect who’s pastor claims that December 25th is the day Jesus was “conceived” so to speak by the Holy Spirit in Mary.

Does freedom in Christ allow each different sect to determine how it chooses to interpret scripture?

Sola Scriptura advocates don’t ignore or reject all tradition. Also, just because something is not contained in scripture doesn’t mean we can’t do it. TV wasn’t around but just because scripture doesn’t mention it doesn’t mean I can’t watch it.

As for interpretations; freedom in Christ doesn’t have to do with scriptural interpretation. Man is “free” to interpret however they want, but that doesn’t make their interpretation correct. Sola Scriptura advocates don’t deny absolute truth.

 

[JonNC]

Why do Sola Scriptura advocates celebrate Christmas? Nowhere in the Bible does it say Dec 25th is the day Jesus was born and that we are to put up Christmas trees and give each other presents. That is not being “Bible alone” and it is a tradition that almost all protestants participate in. What if celebrating Christmas IS pagan and displeasing to God? It very well can be, because it is not “Biblical” right? But at the very least, since it is not in The Bible, it makes it a tradition. So how come “Sola Scriptura” advocates can have it both ways in this sense?

They can “have it both ways” because what you describe is a caricature of sola scriputra, not a description of the practice.
The “sola” in sola scriptura is precise and narrow. It means that only scripture is to be the final norm, which norms all teachings and doctrines. Effectively - only scripture=final norm. The sola does not mean nothing else may be considered.

From the Lutheran Confessions:

1. 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, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Notice in the second paragraph what the sola excludes - it excludes anything as being equal to scripture. But it doesn’t exclude their (tradition) usage- they a witness to the truth of scripture.
In the third paragraph, it further states that some Tradition is so important, so powerful, that we “pledge ourselves to them”.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

I most certainly did not reject the oral rendition of the gospel. I do, however, thoroughly reject man-made traditions that contradict scripture.

Did anyone prior to Martin Luther practice your version of sola scriptura?

Sola scriptura is not taught in scripture nor is it of apostolic origin and it contradicts scripture’s clear instruction concerning Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, so there you go.

But I do understand what it is like to be Protestant and to face these verses squarely.

“This is my body” doesn’t really mean it’s His body.

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” doesn’t really mean that the Apostles had the authority to hear and forgive sins.

With a bit of effort, you can explain these away easily enough, right?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nicely done Randy!

:tiphat:

 

[JonNC]

=LaughingBoy1503;11500181]Ever hear the phrase “dont tell me, show me”? Show me how I have misrepresented Sola Scriptura. And I know not all Sola Scriptura advocates celebrate Christmas or Easter. I don’t know if anyone really believes that Jesus was born on December 25th but I know of at least one sect who’s pastor claims that December 25th is the day Jesus was “conceived” so to speak by the Holy Spirit in Mary.

I hope my previous post helped in that way. Do you have an issue with the fact that the EO celebrate Easter on a different day than we in the West do? I don’t.

Does freedom in Christ allow each different sect to determine how it chooses to interpret scripture?

How it chooses to interpret? Or what interpretation they come to? It seems to me the latter is far more important than the former.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11500247]Did anyone prior to Martin Luther practice your version of sola scriptura?

There are some that say that the Lutheran approach is far closer to what the first millennium Church practiced than not.

Sola scriptura is not taught in scripture nor is it of apostolic origin and it contradicts scripture’s clear instruction concerning Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, so there you go.

Nor would it be taught in scripture. At the time of the writing of the NT, the apostles and their followers were there, so there was no need. The need arises when Tradition doesn’t seem to be consistently understood, which is what we have faced in the second and now the third millennia of the Church.

But I do understand what it is like to be Protestant and to face these verses squarely.

“This is my body” doesn’t really mean it’s His body.

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” doesn’t really mean that the Apostles had the authority to hear and forgive sins.

Amen.

With a bit of effort, you can explain these away easily enough, right?

Nope!

And you forgot: Baptism now saves you.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Did anyone prior to Martin Luther practice your version of sola scriptura?

I just showed where they did, including Paul and the Bereans.

But I do understand what it is like to be Protestant and to face these verses squarely.

“This is my body” doesn’t really mean it’s His body.

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” doesn’t really mean that the Apostles had the authority to hear and forgive sins.

With a bit of effort, you can explain these away easily enough, right?

With correct application of hermeneutics you would see they don’t need to be “explained away” but rather correctly interpreted and applied. But we aren’t going to agree on that.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Sola Scriptura advocates don’t ignore or reject all tradition. Also, just because something is not contained in scripture doesn’t mean we can’t do it. TV wasn’t around but just because scripture doesn’t mention it doesn’t mean I can’t watch it.

As for interpretations; freedom in Christ doesn’t have to do with scriptural interpretation. Man is “free” to interpret however they want, but that doesn’t make their interpretation correct. Sola Scriptura advocates don’t deny absolute truth.

None at all reject all tradition not found in scripture? Can you say that for sure, or do you mean just the majority? At any rate, I agree. I Believe in The Trinity even though it is not plainly stated in scripture that “You must believe God is a Trinity” It might point to it, but if I interpret scripture for myself, I would have never came to that conclusion.

So if man is free to interpret any way that they want, what makes your particular denominations interpretations correct over say The Jehova’s Witnesses’s or The Mormons, or The Seventh day Adventists? Unless you are from one of those denominations. What about oneness Pentecostals, who deny the Trinity? Does not absolute truth vary for all these different groups?

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

They can “have it both ways” because what you describe is a caricature of sola scriputra, not a description of the practice.
The “sola” in sola scriptura is precise and narrow. It means that only scripture is to be the final norm, which norms all teachings and doctrines. Effectively - only scripture=final norm. The sola does not mean nothing else may be considered.

From the Lutheran Confessions:

Notice in the second paragraph what the sola excludes - it excludes anything as being equal to scripture. But it doesn’t exclude their (tradition) usage- they a witness to the truth of scripture.
In the third paragraph, it further states that some Tradition is so important, so powerful, that we “pledge ourselves to them”.

Jon

Well as you know, as a Catholic, I do not believe Tradition trumps scripture but is in perfect harmony with it. And of course I know you see otherwise.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

I hope my previous post helped in that way. Do you have an issue with the fact that the EO celebrate Easter on a different day than we in the West do? I don’t.

How it chooses to interpret? Or what interpretation they come to? It seems to me the latter is far more important than the former.

Jon

I think they are both important. Some denominations literally vote on what they think a passage means. Not all of course, but some.

 

[Kliska]

I Believe in The Trinity even though it is not plainly stated in scripture that “You must believe God is a Trinity” It might point to it, but if I interpret scripture for myself, I would have never came to that conclusion.

I don’t know about that, it’s an interesting thought though. But, we would both agree that we can indeed find the teaching that God is triune in scripture.

So if man is free to interpret any way that they want,

I’m talking literally; at least here in the U.S. people are free to interpret any way they want.

Does not absolute truth vary for all these different groups?

No, or else it wouldn’t be absolute truth. Their opinions on the truth vary, but that does not make truth vary, it makes them wrong. Look at it this way; there are those that believe Peter was the first Pope and that gave him absolute primacy and he then passed that to his successors insuring that all who follow him in the position of the bishop of Rome are infallible and hold the same primacy over all other bishops. Now, some say that is true, some say that is false. Absolute truth dictates they can’t both be right; hence, one of them is wrong. God is the authority behind truth, as Jesus is Truth and the Holy Spirit guides us into truth… and Truth.

 

[JonNC]

Well as you know, as a Catholic, I do not believe Tradition trumps scripture but is in perfect harmony with it. And of course I know you see otherwise.

Not necessarily. There is much of Tradition which is in perfect harmony with scripture. I know you don’t believe Tradition trumps scripture, just as you don’t believe that the Magisterium trumps either of them.
Lutheranism is, however, a bit more complex than some communions, as we view some things as being adiaphora (things indifferent). Much of Mariology falls into that category. Belief in the Assumption, for example, is permitted as personal piety, but not an article of faith, because while not denied, it is not explicit in scripture.

Jon

 

[batman1973]

So if man is free to interpret any way that they want, what makes your particular denominations interpretations correct over say The Jehova’s Witnesses’s or The Mormons, or The Seventh day Adventists? Unless you are from one of those denominations. What about oneness Pentecostals, who deny the Trinity? Does not absolute truth vary for all these different groups?

Personal interpretation is NOT Sola Scriptura. That’s where Catholics get it wrong. Mormons are definitely not Sola Scriptura, rather, they are like the catholics in that The Church Educational System and the Bretheren interpret scripture. (Catholics-magisterium) Jehovah’s Witnesses are also not Sola Scriptura, they have the Watchtower interpret scripture for them. The JW’s also have perverted scripture to fit their theology, rather than allowing Scripture to shape their theology.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Personal interpretation is NOT Sola Scriptura. That’s where Catholics get it wrong. Mormons are definitely not Sola Scriptura, rather, they are like the catholics in that The Church Educational System and the Bretheren interpret scripture. (Catholics-magisterium) Jehovah’s Witnesses are also not Sola Scriptura, they have the Watchtower interpret scripture for them. The JW’s also have perverted scripture to fit their theology, rather than allowing Scripture to shape their theology.

You understand that there is not one single definition of Sola Scriptura? How can we get it wrong? We can basically throw a definition and hit one of the many versions of Sola Scriptura there are out there…

Also, let’s look at your post:

1. Personal Interpretation is not Sola Scriptura.
2. Scriptures should shape theology.

Herein lies the 64,000 cents question:

Who shapes the Scriptures theology?

Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, Wesley, Darby, Spurgeon, and countless many others - How is this not personal interpretation?

 

[batman1973]

You understand that there is not one single definition of Sola Scriptura? How can we get it wrong? We can basically throw a definition and hit one of the many versions of Sola Scriptura there are out there…

Also, let’s look at your post:

1. Personal Interpretation is not Sola Scriptura.
2. Scriptures should shape theology.

Herein lies the 64,000 cents question:

Who shapes the Scriptures theology?

Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, Wesley, Darby, Spurgeon, and countless many others - How is this not personal interpretation?

John NC said it perfectly:

1. 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, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.(From the Lutheran Confessions)

Notice in the second paragraph what the sola excludes - it excludes anything as being equal to scripture. But it doesn’t exclude their (tradition) usage- they a witness to the truth of scripture.
In the third paragraph, it further states that some Tradition is so important, so powerful, that we “pledge ourselves to them”.

So, no, your argument is invalid. Personal interpretation of scripture is NOT SS. Nor are there many definitions of SS. True Sola Scripturists allow scripture to shape their theology.

If you look at the very core beliefs of protestant churches they agree on many of the fundamental truths of the gospel. But, they don’t teach for doctrine man made doctrines like Catholics, Mormons, JW’s, Oneness Pentecostals, and SDAs.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So, no, your argument is invalid. Personal interpretation of scripture is NOT SS. Nor are there many definitions of SS. True Sola Scripturists allow scripture to shape their theology.

If you look at the very core beliefs of protestant churches they agree on many of the fundamental truths of the gospel. But, they don’t teach for doctrine man made doctrines like Catholics, Mormons, JW’s, Oneness Pentecostals, and SDAs.

You have failed to demonstrate the invalidity of my argument.

Just because you keep throwing our name with those born of your seed - does not make it so.

Where is this Protestant Council led by the Holy Spirit to demonstrate Sola Scriptura being a mandate of the Holy Spirit?

Where in Scriptures you see this men made doctrine (plural because there are many definitions)?

Luther was a man, so was Melanchton. Christ chose 12 men, and from those 12 the Church has had a hierarchy. Where is your line of succession to Christ?

You are avoiding my other question:

Who determines how Scriptures are interpreted?

 

[pocohombre]

This is a very dangerous reasoning and works greatly against you.

Where’s the original manuscripts of Scriptures?

Without the originals all you are left with is the testimony of the Church, which is the only source on earth to validate their contents.

Basic legal principle of evidence. I don’t think you want to go down this road.

Peace,

Well good point. No one is denying role of the church. It receives and evaluates testimony down thru the ages. A copy of an original transcript is still better than a passed on oral testimony. Further, no other ancient writing(s) is better documented to be accurate than the OT or NT.