Sola Scriptura...

[crochet_lady]

In response to the Sabbath vs Sunday worship. Yes, the Ten Commandments tell us to keep the Sabbath day holy. We are to rest. Growing up I’d never heard of Sabbath worship. I Did know that stores had always been closed on Sundays. I thought it was Great. People were free to worship on Sunday. No one had to work. A day of rest. Always knew we worship on the Lord’s Day / Sunday BECAUSE it was in honor of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. THAT was Proving that Jesus was Not simply a good teacher of that day who had died. He arose from the dead on that 3rd day / well – “On the 1st day of the week, early in the morning…” One of the Gospels puts it that way. The point being that ‘we’ worship on the Lord’s Day / Sunday / honoring the fact of His bodily resurrection.
Now, maybe the RCC Did have a law in place – I wouldn’t know. But Their law has nothing to do with Protestant Churches worshiping on Sunday.
And there is Also a passage in Galatians? saying to Not judge a person according to what day they worship. If a person wants to worship on Saturday, great, if they want to worship on Sunday, great. At least they are taking time TO worship God. during the week.

 

[PRmerger]

But Their law has nothing to do with Protestant Churches worshiping on Sunday.

Then where is the Bible verse that says that you worship Him on Sundays in church?

And there is Also a passage in Galatians? saying to Not judge a person according to what day they worship. If a person wants to worship on Saturday, great, if they want to worship on Sunday, great. At least they are taking time TO worship God. during the week.

Amen.

 

[dronald]

In reading and responding to some of the posts, one thing that I have noticed about this whole sola scriptura and it meaning that the Bible is the sol authority that one is to follow, how come the protestants who are believers in sola scriptura do not worship the Sabbath since it clearly says that we are to keep the Sabbath day holy? Also it seems to me that tradition is thought of as a man made thing so why do you worship on Sunday? I ask this because it is from the Catholic Church that we worship the Lord’s day on Sunday. The tradition of the Catholic Church is that we do not celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday we celebrate the Lord’s day which the Sabbath points to. So if the Bible is the sol authority then why do you follow the Catholic Tradition to worship on Sunday rather than keeping the Sabbath holy as the Bible commands?

Because Romans 14. That’s why.

 

[JonNC]

In reading and responding to some of the posts, one thing that I have noticed about this whole sola scriptura and it meaning that the Bible is the sol authority that one is to follow, how come the protestants who are believers in sola scriptura do not worship the Sabbath since it clearly says that we are to keep the Sabbath day holy? Also it seems to me that tradition is thought of as a man made thing so why do you worship on Sunday? I ask this because it is from the Catholic Church that we worship the Lord’s day on Sunday. The tradition of the Catholic Church is that we do not celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday we celebrate the Lord’s day which the Sabbath points to. So if the Bible is the sol authority then why do you follow the Catholic Tradition to worship on Sunday rather than keeping the Sabbath holy as the Bible commands?

Beyond the misunderstanding of sola scriptura,'did not the early Christians meet on the Lord’s day?

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Beyond the misunderstanding of sola scriptura,'did not the early Christians meet on the Lord’s day?

Jon

Yes, it is correct that the early Christians did in fact meet on the Lord’s Day. However, that being said, it is also true that the Apostles as well as the Jewish Christians went to the temple to pray on Saturday the Sabbath.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, it is correct that the early Christians did in fact meet on the Lord’s Day. However, that being said, it is also true that the Apostles as well as the Jewish Christians went to the temple to pray on Saturday the Sabbath.

I’m not understanding your point. Are saying that since folks went to the temple on the Sabbath in the OT and NT, that this is then a doctrine, or should be?
Or are you saying that sola scriptura dictates that, since they did, we have to?

Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church of holding teachers, teachings, doctrines, and dogma accountable to scripture, the final norm. That virtually all of the Church Catholic attends worship on the Lord’s Day is perfectly compatible with scripture, but if people want to go on Saturday, then by all means.
Some parishes offer Saturday worship already, and some churches offer regular Wednesday evening services. Since these are not doctrinal issues, but preferences, sola scriptura is not relevant.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

I’m not understanding your point. Are saying that since folks went to the temple on the Sabbath in the OT and NT, that this is then a doctrine, or should be?
Or are you saying that sola scriptura dictates that, since they did, we have to?

Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church of holding teachers, teachings, doctrines, and dogma accountable to scripture, the final norm. That virtually all of the Church Catholic attends worship on the Lord’s Day is perfectly compatible with scripture, but if people want to go on Saturday, then by all means.
Some parishes offer Saturday worship already, and some churches offer regular Wednesday evening services. Since these are not doctrinal issues, but preferences, sola scriptura is not relevant.

Jon

From reading the posts on this thread as well from reading history, it seems that there is or are different interpretation of what sola scriptura means. yet, there are in the protestant fringe groups those who say that sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only authority to follow. This being said, my point is that if that is so then why do no these groups then follow the Bible in all things and worship on Saturday since it is commanded in the OT. Or is it that they decide to follow what suits them and then say its in the Bible and I follow that? yet, do not follow the Bible in all things but only what they want to? that is the point I am making concerning sola scriptura and its various meanings.

 

[JonNC]

From reading the posts on this thread as well from reading history, it seems that there is or are different interpretation of what sola scriptura means. yet, there are in the protestant fringe groups those who say that sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only authority to follow. This being said, my point is that if that is so then why do no these groups then follow the Bible in all things and worship on Saturday since it is commanded in the OT. Or is it that they decide to follow what suits them and then say its in the Bible and I follow that? yet, do not follow the Bible in all things but only what they want to? that is the point I am making concerning sola scriptura and its various meanings.

It might help, then, to be specific about which communion or group you are addressing. Certainly there are some groups that misapply and misconstrue sola scriptura, claiming it excludes Tradition, creeds and the like.
Hopefully, someone from one of those fringe groups will respond to your question.

Jon

 

[steido01]

From reading the posts on this thread as well from reading history, it seems that there is or are different interpretation of what sola scriptura means. yet, there are in the protestant fringe groups those who say that sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only authority to follow. This being said, my point is that if that is so then why do no these groups then follow the Bible in all things and worship on Saturday since it is commanded in the OT. Or is it that they decide to follow what suits them and then say its in the Bible and I follow that? yet, do not follow the Bible in all things but only what they want to? that is the point I am making concerning sola scriptura and its various meanings.

Sola Scriptura means only what the Reformers taught it to mean – that is, not a blind reliance on some strange, ____-version-only proof-texting or literalism – but rather the rule and norm by which all doctrine is formed. This is the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura, and it is the only acceptable academic understanding of it (that’s not subjective - it’s literally the definition!). Sola Scripturists (especially us Lutherans) cannot answer for those who have perverted or commandeered our terminology – especially when they’ve never shared any affiliation to begin with!

Eric_Hilbert:

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
**Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended. **

These rules for posting are not open for debate.

 

[solarguy17]

From reading the posts on this thread as well from reading history, it seems that there is or are different interpretation of what sola scriptura means. yet, there are in the protestant fringe groups those who say that sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only authority to follow. This being said, my point is that if that is so then why do no these groups then follow the Bible in all things and worship on Saturday since it is commanded in the OT. Or is it that they decide to follow what suits them and then say its in the Bible and I follow that? yet, do not follow the Bible in all things but only what they want to? that is the point I am making concerning sola scriptura and its various meanings.

A person that goes to a church that practices Sola Scriptura and uses the Bible as the check on everything we do, let me try and address this question.

I am assuming your reference to worshipping on the Sabbath day is front the OT, specifically the Jewish Law (Old Law) that Jews lived under. These included the 10 Commandments, circumcision, and unclean rules amoungst other things.
The worship and keep holy the Sabbath is a reference to the 3rd Commandment.
Well, the reason a Sola Scriptura believing Christian would not worship on the Sabbath (Saturday) is primarily because of the belief that a Christian is not bound by the Old Covenent and the Old Law. Since keeping the Sabbath Holy is a Old Law, Christians are bound by it.
Instead Christians are bound by the New Covenent and New Law. The New Law really only specifies to take of the Lords Supper (eurchist) and give back to God on the first day of the week (Sunday). Now there are examples of preaching, singing, and generally worshiping on Sunday, so Christian can say that by Apolostolic Example we have permission or command to worship on Sunday.

In general, a Sola Scriptura church wouldn’t permit the Lord Supper to be taken on a day other then Sunday because there is a specific command to take on the 1st day and no example of taking it outside of a Sunday. Wheras as there is example of worship on anyway of the week.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sola Scriptura means only what the Reformers taught it to mean – that is, not a blind reliance on some strange, ____-version-only proof-texting or literalism – but rather the rule and norm by which all doctrine is formed. This is the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura, and it is the only acceptable academic understanding of it (that’s not subjective - it’s literally the definition!). Sola Scripturists (especially us Lutherans) cannot answer for those who have perverted or commandeered our terminology – especially when they’ve never shared any affiliation to begin with!

Don,

Did the reformers agree on SS?

I am pretty sure that they all liked it and preferred it, but still each had his own interpretation.

From your point of view, you can only account for Lutherans. But from a Catholic POV, it is nothing but a sea of confusion and each man on his own.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Scriptura means only what the Reformers taught it to mean – that is, not a blind reliance on some strange, ____-version-only proof-texting or literalism – but rather the rule and norm by which all doctrine is formed.

As the Reformers have no authority, whatsoever, to define SS…SS can mean whatever any man decides it to mean…

to the tune of lots of different definitions of SS.

And no one has the authority to say, “You are wrong. This is what SS means”.

And if he did, then would he not be doing the very thing that he bristles against the CC doing?

Is he not essentially invoking magisterial authority upon the one who has putatively “divorced” herself from the “true” definition of SS?

It is curious that he would reserve for himself (or a Reformer) the authority to do what he himself rejects in the CC.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;11655979]As the Reformers have no authority, whatsoever, to define SS…SS can mean whatever any man decides it to mean…

to the tune of lots of different definitions of SS.

And no one has the authority to say, “You are wrong. This is what SS means”.

Actually, we do. The Lutheran Confessions have a specific definition on the practice of sola scriptura. For Lutherans, that definition is what sola scriptura is. I’ve posted that definition often here, from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord. It hasn’t changed since 1580, and for Lutherans, it is authoritative. So, yes, there is an authority.

And if he did, then would he not be doing the very thing that he bristles against the CC doing?

Not at all. The concern the lutheran reformers had regarding the pope was his exceeding his authority, provided for by the early Church and councils.

Is he not essentially invoking magisterial authority upon the one who has putatively “divorced” herself from the “true” definition of SS?

It is curious that he would reserve for himself (or a Reformer) the authority to do what he himself rejects in the CC.

If someone wishes to hold a variant definition of sola scriptura, neither the CC nor a Lutheran synod can do anything about it. For a Lutheran, they declare themselves outside the confessions. For a Catholic, they declare themselves outside the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Finally, the word true need not be in quotations. If Martin Luther and the other Lutheran reformers are to be held accountable for sola scriptura, either as blame by some, or credit by others, then it seems clear that the Lutheran understanding is the true definition.

Sola scriptura is not personal interpretation. It is only the practice of the Church to hold doctrine accountable to scripture. That’s all.

Jon

 

[nmgauss]

As the Reformers have no authority, whatsoever, to define SS…SS can mean whatever any man decides it to mean…

And no one has the authority to say, “You are wrong. This is what SS means”.

It is curious that he would reserve for himself (or a Reformer) the authority to do what he himself rejects in the CC.

It is similar to the authority that Jesus reserved for himself to dictate to the Sanhedrin that they are wrong and he is right. After spending years among the Essenes and in Galilee mingling with the down-and-out and getting support for his political views, he finally made a trip to Jerusalem with his entourage to do something significant. His choice of the Passover during which he could throw out the money changers and thumb his nose at the high priests of the Temple was very dangerous. His revolt against the powers-that-be accomplished something, and he needed no authority to do it. But he paid with his life.

That is the mechanism by which significant changes have occurred in history. Look at Martin Luther King, Jr. He decided that the status quo was wrong and did something about it. He also paid with his life but had a feeling that he would die doing his work.

 

[steido01]

Don,

Did the reformers agree on SS?

I am pretty sure that they all liked it and preferred it, but still each had his own interpretation.

Hi Jose,
See Jon’s reply.

From your point of view, you can only account for Lutherans. But from a Catholic POV, it is nothing but a sea of confusion and each man on his own.

Perhaps this analogy will help. The newsmedia and Cafeteria Catholics like to miscontrue Pope Francis’ wonderfully Christian words regarding homosexuality - some going so far as to surmise that Francis intends to ‘make homosexuality acceptable in the Church.’ From an uninformed and/or non-Roman Catholic POV, it would seem as though Roman Catholicism is nothing but a sea of confusion in regards to homosexuality. We know this is not the case, of course, because we know what the Church in Rome teaches. I think it is incumbent on those who object to Sola Scriptura to look to history and learn what Sola Scriptura actually means.

 

[spina1953]

A person that goes to a church that practices Sola Scriptura and uses the Bible as the check on everything we do, let me try and address this question.

I am assuming your reference to worshipping on the Sabbath day is front the OT, specifically the Jewish Law (Old Law) that Jews lived under. These included the 10 Commandments, circumcision, and unclean rules amoungst other things.
The worship and keep holy the Sabbath is a reference to the 3rd Commandment.
Well, the reason a Sola Scriptura believing Christian would not worship on the Sabbath (Saturday) is primarily because of the belief that a Christian is not bound by the Old Covenent and the Old Law. Since keeping the Sabbath Holy is a Old Law, Christians are bound by it.
Instead Christians are bound by the New Covenent and New Law. The New Law really only specifies to take of the Lords Supper (eurchist) and give back to God on the first day of the week (Sunday). Now there are examples of preaching, singing, and generally worshiping on Sunday, so Christian can say that by Apolostolic Example we have permission or command to worship on Sunday.

In general, a Sola Scriptura church wouldn’t permit the Lord Supper to be taken on a day other then Sunday because there is a specific command to take on the 1st day and no example of taking it outside of a Sunday. Wheras as there is example of worship on anyway of the week.

Thank you for your thoughts. I agree about Christians are bond by the New Covenant as apposed to the OT. It seems to me that the tradition of the catholic Church in regards to worship on Sunday as the Lord’s day, does prefigure the Sabbath which it pointed to. Yet there are those who feel or think that it is wrong and that somehow Catholic’s and Christians are not somehow following the Sabbath and or that it was by some law or decree removed. While I do understand that most Christians worship the Lord’s day on Sunday that was taken by or continued by the reformers when they broke away from the Catholic Church, and yet Luther is the one along with Calvin as I understand history promoted SS, which today might many things depending who one asks. I do not know of a specific command that Sunday is the only day but I could be wrong about that.

 

[spina1953]

Sola Scriptura means only what the Reformers taught it to mean – that is, not a blind reliance on some strange, ____-version-only proof-texting or literalism – but rather the rule and norm by which all doctrine is formed. This is the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura, and it is the only acceptable academic understanding of it (that’s not subjective - it’s literally the definition!). Sola Scripturists (especially us Lutherans) cannot answer for those who have perverted or commandeered our terminology – especially when they’ve never shared any affiliation to begin with!

First of all let me be very clear, I am not interested in having anyone or do I think anyone needs to or has to defend their beliefs or their opinions. I am here to inform and be informed as to what others think about the issues at hand. I respect what posters say even when I disagree with any posted thought opinion or thinking. I ask question because I am interested in what others have to say so that I might have a better understanding of how and what others might think or believe. If in some way I have offended anyone with my posts I apologize for any misunderstanding I might have caused on my part.

 

[JonNC]

In general, a Sola Scriptura church wouldn’t permit the Lord Supper to be taken on a day other then Sunday because there is a specific command to take on the 1st day and no example of taking it outside of a Sunday. Wheras as there is example of worship on anyway of the week.

Wait! Sola scriptura aside, this simply doesn’t make sense. The very first Eucharist happened on a Thursday. The Sacrament is not limited to any particular day of the week.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Wait! Sola scriptura aside, this simply doesn’t make sense. The very first Eucharist happened on a Thursday. The Sacrament is not limited to any particular day of the week.

Jon

Jon I agree with you that the Eucharist took place on Thursday evening. The reason we celebrate on Sunday is because Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week which as we know id Sunday.

 

[JonNC]

Jon I agree with you that the Eucharist took place on Thursday evening. The reason we celebrate on Sunday is because Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week which as we know id Sunday.

Well, yeah. I was disputing the apparent claim that because Sunday is the Lord’s Day it is the only day we should celebrate the Eucharist.

Jon