The Vanity of Their Minds: Sola Scriptura

My concern, along with LC, is that we frequently end up discussing a strawman that is not what most practicing Protestants mean by sola scriptura. For meaningfuld discussion to occur, BGTF, you need to describe our position in terms that we agree accurately depict it. This has not yet happened. May I refer you to the course on Bibliology and Hemeneutics put together by The Theology Program here. The notebook is free with registration on the site. I also refer you to Keith Mathison's excellent recent book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Otherwise we will talk past one another and Christ will not be glorified by the discussion.

Interesting quotes, except that ours are NOT traditions of men.

The scripture should be used for correction of anyone [2Ti 3:16]. If this were not true, these five passages would not be in the Bible and some men, or groups of men, would be above reproach.

The Apostle Paul felt He was not above reproach [Acts 17:11]. Paul also publicly reproached the Apostle Peter [Gal 2:11 & 2:14]. If these things, along with Jesus Christ's reproaches of five of the seven early churches in Revelation Chapters two and three [Rev 2:1 - 3:22], happened in scripture, we should expect to be personally be careful and discerning for ourselves.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I verify in the Bible what my Pastor is teaching as the Bereans did with the Apostle Paul's teaching.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I (Paul)withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (emphasis added)

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

I cherish my brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ, which I would include you as being, but God has instructed me to personally seek His face.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Christ IS the Word made flesh. He IS the final authority. And you're right, deriving authority from the Bible is NOT the same as deriving authority from Christ Himself. If that were the case, God could have just materialized the Bible and given it to the apostles.

Apparently you are at odds with Christ when He set Peter above the other apostles. I'm sorry for you. Apostolic succession is something you might benefit from studying further.

You claim to know a thing or two about Catholics, well I know a thing or two about Reformers. Idolatry of the Bible is still idolatry.

No King but Christ is exactly right. In this we are agreed. The difference is I recognize that Christ didn't leave us to wander blindly . He did not leave us to our own devices so that my interpretation of Scripture could mean something totally different from what your interpretation means. No, He took steps to keep that from happening. He gave the authority to bind and loose and sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Catholic Church. The Church Christ Himself founded on Peter.

The odd thing here is that there really are at least 2 definitions of Sola Scriptura. There is the definition of the Reformation, our battle cry against the tyrany, oppression, and false doctrine of the Roman Catholics. This definition has not changed. It is still our cry today against Rome.

However, those who were a part of the anti-Reformation movement which birthed modern day Arminians, have their own definition(s) of Sola Scriptura, which I have identified as Solo Scriptura for the tendency to interpret Scripture apart from the church and apart from any tradition.

***Idolatry of the Bible is still idolatry.***

Oh, brother. If you think that is what Sola Scriptura is, then, as you put it, "I'm sorry for you." Though, I'll freely concede that there are those so-called "Protestants" that do have an idolatry of the Bible.

***He did not leave us to our own devices so that my interpretation of Scripture could mean something totally different from what your interpretation means.***

But, this is not the Reformed battlecry of Sola Scriptura. It is the anti-Reformation doctrine (and Catholic & EO straw dummy) called Solo Scriptura. Just because there are so-called Protestants today who practice the doctrine of Solo Scriptura does not mean that they are doing what is right.

***No, He took steps to keep that from happening. He gave the authority to bind and loose and sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Catholic Church. The Church Christ Himself founded on Peter.***

Some men trust in false administrations of the faith.
Some of us trust that the Holy Spirit was given to all of us.

The funny thing is that there are just as many Catholics who simply make up their own beliefs about the Bible as there are "Protestants." Through my wanderings over the years, I have chanced to study with and befriend plenty of Catholics. I don't think I have yet met 2 who agree on all of the even most basic points of Catholic dogma. Arminianism is in a similar disorder.

You can imagine my surprise when I began to study the Calvinism which I embraced and found almost NO deviation from the key essentials among Reformed teachers. And though, credoBaptists may be different than paedoBaptists on a few things (and one of us is clearly wrong and will apologize profusely to the other in Paradise), when it comes to expressing the essentials of faith, we are a single voice.

Sola Scriptura - Our cry aginst the perversion of right authority in the church. We affirm that Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. Every single saint is endowed with the Spirit of Truth and therefore has a responsibility to read, understand, and obey the word of God WITH the church, not apart from it.

Sola Gratia - Our cry against the perversion of the Gospel. We afrirm that salvation is by grace alone. We deny the Catholic & Arminian teaching of grace + works &grace + faith.

Sola Fide - Our cry against the perversion of Justification. We affirm forensic justification and deny the Catholic & Arminian teachings of impartation.

Solus Christus - Our cry against the perversion of Christ centered faith. We affirm a salvation by the sinless life of and the substitutionary penal atonement made by Christ. Look to Christ and live. Trust not in false sacramentalism.

Soli Deo Gloria - Our cry against the perversion of robbing God of His glory. We affirm that to our jealous God be the glory.

Here we stand. And, knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men, and woo them back to that which was once merely called "the Gospel," but today must be called Calvinism to distinguish it from the many faiths which attempt to erode it.

***"Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.*** ~ Charles Spurgeon, Saint, Reformer, defender of the Gospel.

No one can fault the Protestants for their love of Jesus and the Bible, but ultimately their approach is like swearing allegence to the Constitution while denying the authority of the Supreme Court.

One thing I like about your analogy, the Supreme Court is a man-made institution.

But, the analogy quickly falls apart as soon as one realizes the Supreme Court was actually established in or by the Constitution.

"You can imagine my surprise when I began to study the Calvinism which I embraced and found almost NO deviation from the key essentials among Reformed teachers."

This is a point that bears repeating. I was also equally surprise when I "objectively" research God's sovereignty to find out that the Reformed monergistic view has not really changed in its basic principles throughout church history. The TULIP has applied throughout 2000 years. I can pick up Augustine, Calvin or Sproul and understand their basic concepts and principles. It is refreshing that I no longer have to question the basic principles but can focus on the meat of the Bible.

The synergistic view, otoh, has had a number of variations and deviations take on scripture and church throughout the years. You get people from EO, RCC and many "Protestants" holding all sorts of weird ideas arguing whether one can lose their salvation, whether man is depraved, or reconciling major doctrine.

I'll proudly hang my hat with the Reformers.

But, the analogy quickly falls apart as soon as one realizes the Supreme Court was actually established in or by the Constitution.

Not with a Catholic hermeneutic it doesn't.