Disagreement Among Protestants and Sola Scriptura

Just for Catholics ^ | Dr Joe Mizz

[Judith Anne]

YET ANOTHER false flag anti-Catholic bigoted thread posted by our separated brethren.

“Just for Catholics” — What a stupid joke.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

many folks do not understand the difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura.

Amen. An important distinction.

SOLO SCRIPTURA
The Difference a Vowel Makes

[blue-duncan]

“Define “Sola Scriptura”

Norman Geisler

”By sola Scriptura orthodox Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals).”

Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 1, paragraph 6)., “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men”.

The Scripture is sufficient and authoritative in and of itself for the revelation of all things necessary for salvation and an exposition of Christianity. Scripture alone is infallible and is superior to and judges all tradition, church history, ecumenical councils, or the authority of Church Fathers and theologians. This does not mean that Scripture is the only form by which God’s revelation of truth has come to His people and it does not necessarily mean that all truth is to be found in Scripture alone; the doctrine means that it applies to things necessary to man’s salvation and to all matters pertaining to faith and practice.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Why, do you think? Was it because what they were teaching was correct, or to simply avoid a fight in the middle of the Temple?”

Jesus would never teach people to go along to get along. “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. “

[RnMomof7]

Yes. And yet He told His disciples to obey the Pharisees when they sat in the seat of Moses - which is when they would use tradition to explain the observance of the law.

In context:

Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, v.2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. "And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Jesus then went on and gave His 7 woes to the Pharisees that were listening to Him.

There was actually no such thing as a "Seat of Moses" . It was kinnda an expression that meant leadership , expounding the law (scripture), the Pharisees would sit in the temple when they were teaching,, and of course Jesus wants all of us to listen to and obey the scriptures.. this was not about tradition it was about scripture

Or put another way...... listen to and follow the scripture , but do not follow their traditions

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Or put another way...... listen to and follow the scripture , but do not follow their traditions”

I already pointed that out with Christ’s own words - glad you could catch up. And none of that changes the fact that they used tradition to interpret the law and Jesus clearly told His disciples to obey them in that regard.

[RnMomof7]

He told them not to obey the traditions

[RnMomof7]

"Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. 'But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that" (Mk. 7:6-13).

[vladimir998]

No. He told them not to ACT like them. It is elsewhere that Jesus condemns traditions of men.

[Mr Rogers]

“Define “Sola Scriptura””

Sure. From another attack scripture thread today:

#
Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone” (Sola Scriptura)
Monday, February 22, 2010 10:07:00 AM · 42 of 169
Mr Rogers to Pyro7480

Before critiquing Sola Scriptura, folks ought to learn what it MEANS!

“Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.”

Full debate between James White and Patrick Madrid (both sides) available here:

http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies

[SoothingDave]

Yeah, one is ignorant of Latin grammar and the other isn’t. They’re both fanciful, man-made and inherently contradictory.

[1000 silverlings]

They can attack the scripture all they want, I’ve got a King James bible and I’m going to Alcatraz

[Mr Rogers]

Just for fun - on an attack the authority of scripture kind of day, a picture from a New Testament I recently bought - a facsimile of Tyndale's NT, 1526 version, courtesy of the British Museum:

[Between the Lines]

(NYer, you were pinged to this post only because I mentioned you by name)

YET ANOTHER false flag anti-Catholic bigoted thread posted by our separated brethren.

I resent the implication that I am being anti-Catholic. I dare you to go through my entire history of posts here at FR and find anything or any article I have posted that is anti-Catholic.

I have even posted Catholic articles under the "Catholic Caucus" (a caucus I cannot participate in) heading because I knew that they were of interest to the Catholic community here at FR, but because of their nature that they might also draw fire from the Protestants. I no longer do that because of all the flack I took from both sides. Instead I forward any article that might need a Catholic caucus designation to NYer so that he may post them if he wishes.

I actually posted this article for just the opposite reason than you say. I thought an article about the similarities of Catholics and Protestants would be a refreshing change for this forum.

Go slander someone else!

1 Corinthians 8:6 - yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

[Between the Lines]

The reason I ask, is because many folks do not understand the difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura.

I understand the difference, thanks for clarifying. The reason I answered you post the way I did is that the norm in this forum is that when someone asks you define something, it is usually a trap.

[RnMomof7]

You are the one that brought up the seat of moses as it was in support of tradition...it was not, it was addressing the teaching of the law (scripture)

[P8riot]

I am not interested in traps, just honest debate. Thanks.

[Judith Anne]

Then you know NOTHING about the site you posted from.

[RnMomof7]

It is important to understand the difference between an "anti Catholic hit piece" and a pro protestant piece. This piece explains defend the accusation against protestants that they all have different reading of scripture,,

I think Protestants are allowed to post articles that explain or offer a defense of a common anti protestant position :)

[P8riot]

The fundamental problem with "solo" Scriptura is that it results in autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine. The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final authority in the church while "solo" Scriptura places final authority in each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard, and that final standard is the individual's personal judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and relativism. The reformers' appeal to "Scripture alone," however, was never intended to mean "me alone."

Excerpted from here:

SOLO SCRIPTURA
The Difference a Vowel Makes