Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekerofTruth27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe371 said:
Do the various Christians belonging to different churches, with leaders teaching different things, also possess the the heart, mind and soul to understand Jesus’ Word? If so then why don’t they all have the same understanding of scripture? I don’t think God teaches different things to different folks, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a denomination myself- not Roman Catholic, not Anglican, not Lutheran, not Methodist, etc. However, having read the core beliefs of a number of different denominations, I find this statement to be generally very true:
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, love.
 
Sola Scriptura is hermeneutical tofu. One can draw any one of many possible conclusions using this method. It is heavily vulnerable to cognitive biases, especially the confirmation bias. Calvin or Arminius? Both camps are convinced. This is a problem.
 
Faithdancer said:
God gave me the heart, mind and soul to understand His Word.I don’t need a magisterium to explain Sacred Scripture to me. There are plenty of great commentaries if I want additional insight.
Click to expand...
God gave saint Paul the heart, mind and soul to understand His Word, (write His word) and yet he still deferred to the teaching office of the church. He needed it but you do not? Hmm…

“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question”
 
a_priori said:
Sola Scriptura is hermeneutical tofu. One can draw any one of many possible conclusions using this method. It is heavily vulnerable to cognitive biases, especially the confirmation bias. Calvin or Arminius? Both camps are convinced. This is a problem.
Click to expand...
I agree. It simply does not work; it’s a bankrupt system devised by the reformers…
 
Faithdancer said:
God gave me the heart, mind and soul to understand His Word.I don’t need a magisterium to explain Sacred Scripture to me. There are plenty of great commentaries if I want additional insight.
Click to expand...
I’m always amused by this attitude…

[bibledrb]Genesis 2:18[/bibledrb]

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
Or of thine own were:
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

John Donne
 
joe371 said:
Do the various Christians belonging to different churches, with leaders teaching different things, also possess the the heart, mind and soul to understand Jesus’ Word? If so then why don’t they all have the same understanding of scripture? I don’t think God teaches different things to different folks, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
joe371 said:
I see just the opposite…Can you show me some proof that the majority of the early catholic church did not view Peter as the Rock, but rather his confession…? 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, that was one of the views. Tertullian, Origen, and St. Cyprian viewed Peter as the rock; Eusebius views Christ as the rock, as does St. John of Damascus and St. Jerome. St. Augustine does as well, though he earlier held it was Peter, then changed his position. St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil of Seleucia, and Paul of Emesa view the rock as Peter’s confession. I won’t post lengthy quotes, lest the cherry picking debate start (see the Eastern Catholicism thread lol).
 
CaliLobo said:
That’s the thing. The Bible does not say anything on point with respect to abortion. So if you believe in Sola Scriptura, then it is not required of you to oppose abortion politically. Popularity of abortion laws is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I really hope you’re kidding.

5th commandment: Thou shall not murder.

And if you doubt that a child in the womb is human and alive then Jeremiah 1:5:

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
 
CaliLobo said:
Could you answer where in the Bible does it mandate us to follow Holy Tradition?
Click to expand...
Besides that Jesus followed tradition ( including being circumcised) ?

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15

To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 ESV

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
 
benjohnson said:
Besides that Jesus followed tradition ( including being circumcised) ?

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15

To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 ESV

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
Click to expand...
I have noticed in some bibles that they replace the word paradosis. As a former non-Catholic it occurred to me that these passages clearly indicate that 1 Corinthians 4:6 does not support the practice of sola scriptura. This a pretty interesting debate, and it includes 1 Corinthians 4:6. I kind of felt bad for Matt Slick. You will understand if you watch the whole thing: youtube.com/watch?v=uZcXVLcx25c

“Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?”
 
benjohnson said:
I really hope you’re kidding.

5th commandment: Thou shall not murder.

And if you doubt that a child in the womb is human and alive then Jeremiah 1:5:

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Either you believe the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and sufficient, or you don’t.
 
joe371 said:
God gave saint Paul the heart, mind and soul to understand His Word, (write His word) and yet he still deferred to the teaching office of the church. He needed it but you do not? Hmm…

“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question”
Click to expand...
The circumcision issue was settled, yes. There was no Roman Catholic magisterium at that time if that is what you mean by “teaching office of the church.”
 
Per_Crucem said:
Well, that was one of the views. Tertullian, Origen, and St. Cyprian viewed Peter as the rock; Eusebius views Christ as the rock, as does St. John of Damascus and St. Jerome. St. Augustine does as well, though he earlier held it was Peter, then changed his position. St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil of Seleucia, and Paul of Emesa view the rock as Peter’s confession. I won’t post lengthy quotes, lest the cherry picking debate start (see the Eastern Catholicism thread lol).
Click to expand...
All of these people believed that Peter was the Rock as well. :)Simon’s confession is valid as is Simon being the rock on which Jesus’ church is built; they are not mutually exclusive ideas. something I am sure you already knew. :thumbsup:The Catholic Church embraces both:

CCC Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the “living Stone”,285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
 
Either the Bible is inspired, inerrant and sufficient, or it’s not. I believe it is all three- end of discussion.🙂
 
Faithdancer said:
Either the Bible is inspired, inerrant and sufficient, or it’s not. I believe it is all three- end of discussion.🙂
Click to expand...
Are you inerrant? I doubt it.
Have you met Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptists?
Your views are the same.
 
Faithdancer said:
The circumcision issue was settled, yes. There was no Roman Catholic magisterium at that time if that is what you mean by “teaching office of the church.”
Click to expand...
You said: 'God gave me the heart, mind and soul to understand His Word.I don’t need a magisterium to explain Sacred Scripture to me.

God gave Paul the heart, mind and soul to understand His Word, and yet he still deferred to the church magisterium (means teaching office as you probably know and is very scriptural) to have the issue resolved. Paul and his acquaintances travelled all the way to Jerusalem to defer to the teaching office comprised of the apostles and presbyters. Shouldn’t you follow his example, and his writings:

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. Hebrews 13

Jerusalem council

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
 
Faithdancer said:
Either the Bible is inspired, inerrant and sufficient, or it’s not. I believe it is all three- end of discussion.🙂
Click to expand...
If the Holy Bible is inspired then it is inerrant. However, where does the Holy Bible say that the Holy Bible is sufficient?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top