Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Sola Scriptura Honestly Scares Me
http://www.patheos.com ^ | July 22, 2013 | Ryan Adams

Posted on 07/10/2014 8:05:46 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

Being raised in a Protestant home, the Scriptures were (and in many ways still are) the end-all-be-all of the faith for me. However, there is a reason I am no longer a Protestant. This reason has many branches but all points back to one thing, context. Given the necessity of context, I find the whole idea of “Scripture Alone” horrifying.

What it is:

Sola Scriptura is the idea that Christianity ought to be based off of “Scripture Alone” (which is the English translation of “Sola Scriptura”), that is to say, it should be without ritual, or the teaching authority of anyone. And that each of us is obligated to read the Scriptures and form ourselves through them, on our own.

It Can’t Really Exist:

Many of the things we are afraid of do not exist. Zombies, Armageddon cults (the kind who bring on the end of the world via some long-forgotten Egyptian deity), Cthulhu, and so on, are all prime examples of thing which are scary, but don’t really exist.

This is how I feel about Sola Scriptura. It’s frightening, but in reality it doesn’t exist.

It would seem a little ridiculous to say that it doesn’t exist; being that it’s the staple doctrine of nearly all Protestants. However, that’s just the point… it’s a doctrine. It’s already going against itself, erasing itself from the realm of possibility by its own action. A doctrine (not scripture) which proclaims that all doctrine are to be rejected is ludicrous (A harkening back to the, now terribly clichéd, argument against relativism). It simply isn’t possible to have Scripture alone, since you didn’t receive Scripture alone. Instead, all of us were taught about Scripture by someone else. It didn’t just fall out of the sky and land on us. And even if it did, it’s still given to us by someone, the authors who had lives, cultures, rituals, and all number of things which provide a context for the Scriptures. And context means that Scripture is by no means “alone.”

Anyways, there’s a serious problem which arises from the relentlessly individualistic model of Biblical interpretation. Whenever anyone begins their own interpretation of anything, without direction, they form a sort of autobiography in their interpretation. Interpretation of this sort reflects nothing but oneself.

This is a main idea of that certain Frenchman (philosopher Jacques Derrida), that whenever one interprets a text without context, one is simply painting a self-portrait with the colors of the text they are interpreting. This is because pure ideas do not simply pass from one person to another, instead they must pass through the filtration of language, which is passed further through the schema of one’s consciousness which allows one to make sense of things. This schema is built, in part, by the social, historical, political, etc, context in which we live, making it impossible to avoid unless we allow our understanding to be mapped by another context. If this contextual misreading and subsequent autobiography is turned upon the Scriptures, then I can think of no more grievous blasphemy than to make the Scriptures, which are supposed to be the image and fulfillment, the Word of God, into nothing more than an autobiography.

To deform God into an image of yourself is idolatry itself; a golden calf of proudly defended misinterpretation.

It Isn’t Biblical:

Nowhere in the Bible will you find any discussion of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible. Both the New and Old Testament will make reference to “the Scriptures,” but this does not refer to the Bible as a whole, only the Old Testament.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 makes it clear that there is a decisively important element of tradition and that much was taught by word of mouth. The separation between what has been taught by word of mouth and what has been relayed by the epistles (which are letters by bishops/Apostles) means that not everything which was important to know was recorded in the epistles.

Furthermore, the New Testament makes it clear that the Apostles (and in the First Letter to Timothy, bishops) are the bearers of the teaching of Christ, and that it is their duty to protect those teachings, and to instruct those of the faith in these teachings. Also made abundantly clear is the fact that anyone’s interpretation of the teachings of Christ is not as good as anyone else’s, were this true, there would have been no need for Paul’s letters, or really any of the New Testament aside from the Gospels.

What About History(?):

As I’ve already mentioned, the concept of Scripture Alone rejects a basic fact of the Scriptures; that they were written by men. While I do believe that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and kept free of error by the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t change the fact that people wrote these books, and as such, they are full of context (historical situation, cultural practices, societal expectations, and (perhaps most importantly) language and idiom). Without knowledge of the history and culture of the human authors of the Scriptures, one can have no hope of understanding what they are trying to communicate.

This is not even to mention the fact that the Bible itself (especially the New Testament) is a book with a lot of historical movement. The early Church (in the time of the Apostles) did not have the books of the New Testament (mostly since they were still being written), and it wasn’t until many generations later that these books were codified and the canon was created. The Church spent the bulk of its early life without these New Testament scriptures, thus, Sola Scriptura is historically speaking a fairly new idea (it’s hard to preach “Scripture Alone” when you don’t yet have Scriptures…).

What’s more is that this ideal of “Scripture Alone” rejects the whole of Christianity which has come before the individual Christian. It rejects the history of the Church and the great teachers of the faith (and when it doesn’t, it doesn’t uphold its own values.)

Pride:

All of this culminates in my reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura (and thus Protestantism); pride.

I am perhaps one of the worst offenders when it comes to this particular sin, so I place no judgment on those who fall into it; however this doesn’t mean that even I, the worst among the prideful, should sit by and allow my pride to become dogma. Rather, we should always struggle against our sins.

The pride of Sola Scriptura, if it is even possible, is in its rejection of those who have taught us: our parents, our preachers/priests/teachers, the history of the Church (the saints, the councils, the Fathers), and through this, even the Apostles, those who learned everything directly from the mouth of Christ himself; in favor of a vain autobiography of self-interpretation. A self-portrait painted with the colors of the Gospel.

This is obvious the worst case scenario of the doctrine, but this is the result of it’s actually being followed. Even the most well-meaning person who takes the “Scripture Alone” seriously will be nothing more than an arm chair theologian, someone who is completely ignorant of the period and context of the texts written and so instead is forced to put their own context and period in as a stand in. Thus the self-portrait appears again, even when the believer is well-meaning and pious in their practice. In this, Scripture Alone is again found impossible, as it’s no longer “Scripture Alone,” but rather it is “Scripture and Me.”

This is why Sola Scriptura frightens me. I am full of sin: failings and misgivings and bias. As such I much prefer “Scripture and Tradition,” to “Scripture and Me.”


TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion; History; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-275 next last
"So let us cast aside the false promise of “Just-me-and-my-Bible” Christianity, let us remove the crushing burden of telling every individual Christian, no matter how poor, uneducated, or illiterate, that he must be his own theologian and that his soul hangs in the balance, let us remove the hypocrisy Protestant pastors are forced into by the doctrine as they permit for themselves a right they prohibit for the members of their congregations, and let us be honest, with the Catholic Church, about the matter: Sola scriptura, and the absolute right of private judgment which it entails, is simply not God’s plan" ~ Jimmy Aiken, Catholic Convert from Protestantism
1 posted on 07/10/2014 8:05:46 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Anyone have some popcorn?


2 posted on 07/10/2014 8:07:28 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Nonsense. Don’t have time to address this in full, but your premise will not stand the test of scripture.


3 posted on 07/10/2014 8:09:25 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Why Sola Scriptura Honestly Scares Me

Fear is a sin. Honestly. Better repent before it's too late.

4 posted on 07/10/2014 8:10:53 PM PDT by Hoodat (Proverbs 29:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

... LOL ... “I’m scared to death of what God says! ... :-) ...


5 posted on 07/10/2014 8:10:54 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fungi

the author was all over a poorly drawn map....


6 posted on 07/10/2014 8:13:40 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey ( "Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchill ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Things that make you go Huh? ping


7 posted on 07/10/2014 8:15:18 PM PDT by logitech (It is time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Only feeble minded children need someone “learned” to explain the plain language of the Bible to them. Only sheep blindly accept the “authority” of those who claim themselves to be the only way to enter Gods kingdom.


8 posted on 07/10/2014 8:15:57 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
I find the whole idea of “Scripture Alone” horrifying.

What a sad sight that would be. A soldier sent into battle without a sword is a useless soldier. Eph 6:17 "And take the helmet of Salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." Jesus met the temptations with OT texts. I don't really care what Jimmy Aiken or Clay Aiken says, God says "Come let us reason together". So I take Him at His word. You follow the Aikens.

9 posted on 07/10/2014 8:16:29 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Obama - The Scandal a Week President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Great Straw Man Attack Article of the Day!


10 posted on 07/10/2014 8:19:58 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "I didn't leave the Central Oligarchy Party. It left me." - Ronaldus Maximus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
This writer has a derivative view of sola, which is not very close to the original meaning and intent when Luther voiced the principle. It was declared because in Luther's day, the church taught that Christianity was whatever the pope, or even the bishop, said it was; and scripture was not accessible to the masses to verify what the pope said.

As we know, the popes in those days were often highly corrupt and venal and twisted the scripture to say whatever they wanted. "Sola scriptura" was an attempt to protect the faith from corruption, not to make everyone his own theologist. That is just silly.

Luther said, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it".(Note: scripture vs A pope without it) The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority and to reject what Catholics considered to be Apostolic Tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible, wherever Tradition did not have Biblical support or where it supposedly contradicted Scripture.

Sola Scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Martin Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."[6].

(from wikipedia)

11 posted on 07/10/2014 8:21:52 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Sola Scriptura is the idea that Christianity ought to be based off of “Scripture Alone” (which is the English translation of “Sola Scriptura”), that is to say, it should be without ritual, or the teaching authority of anyone. And that each of us is obligated to read the Scriptures and form ourselves through them, on our own.

Well, no wonder the guy is scared...he doesn't even know what sola Scriptura even means! Is this how Catholicism is tricking people into joining them by scaring people with lies???!

12 posted on 07/10/2014 8:23:19 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The author’s arguments have holes big enough to drive a pope-mobile through.

If he’ll stop blindly following men and start thinking this subject through more carefully, I bet before long he’ll look back on this essay with embarrassment.


13 posted on 07/10/2014 8:23:39 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

The Bible is written in a way that children can understand the plan of salvation.


14 posted on 07/10/2014 8:24:00 PM PDT by MamaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: NKP_Vet

I was going to say that this fellow doesn’t not understand sola scriptura, but it looks like you guys have it covered.


16 posted on 07/10/2014 8:26:03 PM PDT by Hootowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logitech
Things that make you go Huh? ping

Yeah, most anti-Biblical, "God's-Word-is-not-sufficient" catholic stuff makes me go "huh?"

17 posted on 07/10/2014 8:26:21 PM PDT by WXRGina (The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
"Given the necessity of context, I find the whole idea of “Scripture Alone” horrifying."..."And that each of us is obligated to read the Scriptures and form ourselves through them, on our own."

Agree with the Straw Man article of the day comment.

Protestants don't teach scripture alone. But scripture is authoritative, because it was written by prophets and apostles. Scripture itself tells you that the Holy Spirit was sent to convict us and to remind of scriptures. Scripture itself also commands believers not to forsake fellowshiping together. And tells us no scripture is of private interpretation. Thus church helps us with interpretation, and helps us with understanding the right context.

18 posted on 07/10/2014 8:26:46 PM PDT by DannyTN (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

ditto


19 posted on 07/10/2014 8:29:37 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew (Even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

yup!...Aids is a hard thing to face...


20 posted on 07/10/2014 8:30:48 PM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Protestants don't teach scripture alone. But scripture is authoritative, because it was written by prophets and apostles. Scripture itself tells you that the Holy Spirit was sent to convict us and to remind of scriptures. Scripture itself also commands believers not to forsake fellowshiping together. And tells us no scripture is of private interpretation. Thus church helps us with interpretation, and helps us with understanding the right context.

So this understanding of scripture and church does not preclude doctrinal development?

21 posted on 07/10/2014 8:30:49 PM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fungi
Where does scripture say that all faith must come from scripture?
Where does scripture tell us which Books will be part of the Bible?
Tradition dictated what was and was not scripture.
Sola Scriptura would not be possible without tradition.
22 posted on 07/10/2014 8:32:50 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Thanks amigo! I was gonna enjoy a quiet evening at home. Oh well! Once more into the breach and all that! LOL

Pax et bonum!

23 posted on 07/10/2014 8:32:51 PM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

His argument is self contradictory. He decides what authority controls by using his own opinion that individual opinions are not authoritative.


24 posted on 07/10/2014 8:33:30 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Easy to lose sight of what that doctrine actually means. Sola Scriptura does beg a question: what, outside of Scripture, is needed for the salvation of a soul? That begs another question: if something else is needed, upon what is it based? There are arguments against the doctrine, but this piece isn’t a good one. Can a non-believer, stranded alone, with only a Bible to go on, or even just part of one, be saved? Food for thought.


25 posted on 07/10/2014 8:33:42 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hootowl

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters.


26 posted on 07/10/2014 8:36:27 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
Easy to lose sight of what that doctrine actually means. Sola Scriptura does beg a question: what, outside of Scripture, is needed for the salvation of a soul?

Does this question presume that the Church is outside of scripture?

Can a non-believer, stranded alone, with only a Bible to go on, or even just part of one, be saved? Food for thought.

Sure. Even a non-believer without the scriptures can be saved. God is loving and merciful.

27 posted on 07/10/2014 8:39:06 PM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Tradition should not supersede the Bible. If something in history caused the church to misapply Scripture, it is irrelevant how long practice might have been in place, it should be corrected, if it goes against what the Bible says.

Having said that, I think the principle of Sola Scriptura is often misapplied with many Protestants, because there can be a tendency to refuse to take context into account. I’ve had conversations with Christians, when you try to explain what was happening in the church during the period Scripture was written, they refuse to pay attention and just rely upon the literal writing without context.


28 posted on 07/10/2014 8:39:18 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Never understood how folks think God’s word isn’t sufficient enough and then to a sinner like the pope to look for salvation....!

Sola papa over God’s word...!


29 posted on 07/10/2014 8:41:11 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; Oldeconomybuyer; RightField; aposiopetic; rbmillerjr; Lowell1775; JPX2011; Jed Eckert; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

30 posted on 07/10/2014 8:43:05 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

Being Catholic isn’t about the pope, it’s about the Eucharist.

You need not believe in the real presence but Catholics do... regardless of who happens to be pope.


31 posted on 07/10/2014 8:45:52 PM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

RE: Nowhere in the Bible will you find any discussion of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible. Both the New and Old Testament will make reference to “the Scriptures,” but this does not refer to the Bible as a whole, only the Old Testament.

Bluntly put, this is NOT a good argument.

The word “Trinity” is not found in scripture either, and yet it is clearly revealed in scripture to be a truth.

It is very similar to the Muslim declaration fallacy which demands that Christ state “I am God” in the New Testament to prove His divinity. We do not need a term to be present in order to demonstrate its definition.

St. Paul said to Timothy:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Just before this passage, Paul had told Timothy that “from childhood you have known the sacred writings” (referring to the education by his mother and grandmother; 2 Tim 1:5), and states that the scripture is “able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). As Paul explains to his spiritual son, the education and teaching of salvation is inherently found in the scriptures, he did not cite any other source.

In addition, it is worth noting that the phrase translated as “inspired by God” is actually a single Greek word which means — “God-breathed.”

In other words, the scripture is literally breathed out by God, and is the word of the Lord speaking to the churches even today. This special title is given to no other authority in all of holy writ except scripture itself.

Many will interject here with, “But didn’t tradition and customs have some role in the apostolic church?”

Yes, but it is never placed on so high a level as scripture, nor could it.

For example, many quote Paul’s reference to a Jewish tradition regarding the names of Pharaoh’s magicians (2 Tim 3:8), but this is no different than a Christian referring to the belief that Paul was beheaded or Peter was crucified upside down.

A person can live and die and not lose salvation if they do not know the names of Pharaoh’s magicians or what became of Paul after Acts 28, and therefore the knowledge itself is not paramount. Also note that one does NOT lose the meaning of the stories in Exodus or Acts if a person does not know either fact. This information is therefore not complimentary with scripture, but secondary.

Likewise, we see again contradictions between “unwritten traditions” of the various “apostolic” churches.

Roman Catholics will claim Purgatory, papal infallibility/supremacy, and various other dogmas as unwritten tradition, whereas most non-Roman Catholic churches deny all of them. Some (though not all) Eastern Orthodox will support Aerial Toll Houses as unwritten tradition while this belief cannot be found in other “apostolic” churches.

Yet the majority of apostolic churches believe a good portion of their traditions, dogma or not, to have come from the apostolic period, even if nothing is recorded of them until hundreds of years after the time of Acts (example: the bodily assumption of Mary).

Whereas we have an infallible source of written authority within sacred scripture, there is no infallible source of unwritten authority in any church. It is always simply circularly assumed that the individual church’s unwritten traditions are infallibly true.


32 posted on 07/10/2014 8:46:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).


33 posted on 07/10/2014 8:46:08 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Sola Scriptura Or Sola Papa?

by Chuck Durham
via Biblical Insights, Vol. 7, No. 9, Sept. 2007.

Pope Benedict XVI released a Vatican document on July 10, 2007 that reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church as providing the only true path to salvation. The document claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church on earth having “the fullness of the means of salvation.” All other churches (excepting the Greek Orthodox Church) “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles (Bryan-College Station Eagle, July 11, 2007).

It is the age-old question that so many people have asked: “Which church of all the churches is the right one? They all claim to follow the Bible, so how do we know which is right?” Good question. And it deserves a forthright answer. But it all depends upon the foundation on which we build.

The Bible is that foundation — the only foundation. The Bible claims to be the sole authoritative means by which we can rightly hear the One True Authority — God. The Roman Catholic Church claims that both 1)the Bible and 2)the apostolic succession of the Roman Pope (who alone may rightly interpret the Bible and speak law for the faithful on earth today) are authoritative. It is a battle as old as the Reformation.

The early Protestants called it “Sola Scriptura.” Only Scripture. Martin Luther told secular and Church officials at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason — I cannot accept the authority of popes and councils because they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”

Luther was right about popes and councils contradicting each other. They did — often — as history records. Not only did they contradict their teaching, accepting at times what had been condemned as heresy at others — they had, on occasions, as may as three men claiming to be the Pope at the same time. Who rightfully had “apostolic succession?” Who determined it? The answer comes: the Roman Catholic Church. Does this should like circular reasoning? Carefully study the history of the Roman Catholic Church and its claim to “apostolic succession” and it is as appalling as it is ludicrous. Time and again it was based upon political expediency, avarice, power hunger and every manipulation to which man is capable of descending.

What the Roman Catholic Church really wants is to be the sole interpreter of Scripture. The Pope alone can tell us what it means (and add to it when he wants). If their basis for being the “one, true church” lies in their ability to trace their lineage back to the apostles, don’t bet the farm on it! Why? Because the Scriptures never — ever — command, necessarily infer, or by apostolic example illustrate a “succession” to the original apostles.

Open the New Testament and read it from cover to cover. Where does any verse of Scripture claim apostolic succession? What the Scriptures claim is that the Scriptures alone hold the “fullness of the means of salvation” because they teach the truth regarding Jesus (Romans 1:16; II Timothy 3:16,17; II Peter 1:19-21; 3:15,16). Popes and councils over the centuries have originated doctrines foreign to the pages of the New Testament. And the early Protestants saw it. They could read. They could understand the Scriptures — and they didn’t need Popes and councils to tell them so. The threw out vestments; sacraments; instrumental music; they gave both elements of the Lord’s Supper to the people; priests married and monasticism was scrapped; fast days and masses for the dead were abandoned; relics and images were smashed. Some read further and discovered that only adult believers were baptized and so they ceased baptizing infants. Others saw only congregations as being the organization of the church.

Sola Scriptura
If you can’t find it in the Bible, then it’s not from God and must be discarded as a manmade invention. And if we accept this as our guiding authority in service to God — the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church will find themselves on the wrong side of the debate.

Do your homework
There are more than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament; thousands more translations in early tongues; a text that is nearly 100% certain in light of all variant readings (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 365). I’ll bank everything on Sola Scriptura. It never mentions a “pope.” It despises the very idea that “one man” would set himself up over the Lord’s church.

I believe that there is “only one true church” on earth (Ephesians 1:22,23; 4:4). And that church’s distinguishing features can only be determined by matching its practices with the New Testament. That’s the only way to know which church is the true church today.


34 posted on 07/10/2014 8:46:09 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
QUOTE: "...the history of the Church (the saints, the councils, the Fathers...)"

If he actually studied his scriptures, he would know ALL believers are Saints (Romans 1:7, 1 Cor 1:2), and we are not to call any religious leader "father" (Matthew 23:9).

The Bereans of Acts 17:11 were commended for searching the scriptures to determine is the things taught to them by the apostles were true, and as Paul told Timothy in 2 Tim 3:16 -17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of Goda may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Granted, we have all learned at the feet of others, but it is up to us as individuals to determine if what we have been taught is scripturally true.

I am convinced that what the author is scared of is learning the truth that much of what he has been taught is merely the traditions of men, exactly what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for! See Matthew 15:6-9

"6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8“ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’”

35 posted on 07/10/2014 8:47:06 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
Tradition should not supersede the Bible.

I agree and I don't believe that it does. Tradition does not supersede. It acts in concert, in harmony, with the Bible. The Deposit of the Faith which contains all of Divine Revelation is both Scripture and Tradition. It's a false dichotomy to separate the two according to the dictates of individual preference which is what sola scriptura does.

And there will be those who'll lob some verses, and I'll lob back, etc. ad nauseaum. The point is, that what was said, and what was done are just as important as what was written. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: How we pray is how we believe. That counts for something.

36 posted on 07/10/2014 8:48:45 PM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.

Yeah, that someone who has his soul on the line. Go join the kool-aid line if you want, the main crux of the Scriptures are obvious to those who thirst for knowledge. God even promised help in this area (if you know where to look in the Bible that is).

37 posted on 07/10/2014 8:49:14 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Obama - The Scandal a Week President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

This guy has no understanding of Sola Scriptura.

He is describing solo scriptura.

Stopped reading after the first few sentences, no reason to even try to disagree with him.


38 posted on 07/10/2014 8:50:05 PM PDT by Gamecock (There is room for all of God's animals. Right next to the mashed potatoes and gravy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
That's not fair!! You're using facts and Scriptures to back up your position.

/s

39 posted on 07/10/2014 8:51:44 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Obama - The Scandal a Week President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Where is “Scripture only” found? In Scripture of course, not some extra-Scriptural doctrine, as the author claims, which would be self-contradictory.

Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Examples abound of those who went beyond Scripture and paid the price, Moses, Saul etc.


40 posted on 07/10/2014 8:52:04 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE! --- ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The premise not withstanding, this writing style just annoys me with too many unnecessary words and phrases for my liking. I found it difficult to focus on what the author was communicating.


41 posted on 07/10/2014 8:58:57 PM PDT by langleyaction (Embedded within every corrupt system are the seeds of its destruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPX2011

>So this understanding of scripture and church does not preclude doctrinal development?

What the Catholic Church said at the last council is final and infallible until the next council, no matter what Scripture says.


42 posted on 07/10/2014 9:00:35 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE! --- ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I went and got a few Scriptures to prove Sola Scriptura. After reading all the others posted here, how can there be the least doubt? Deniers are like the Pharisees.


43 posted on 07/10/2014 9:04:28 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE! --- ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse

I don’t blame you for denying your pope’s, I’d run from those sinful men too....!


44 posted on 07/10/2014 9:04:40 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

But what of the Traditions of God? When the Apostles were sent forth, they didn't have Bibles with them. The only Scripture they brought was the Old Testament. The New Testament was the word of their testimony... the Tradition born out of the Lamb of God Himself.

Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

How many books are there in the Bible? It's an important question to answer your challenge because Revelation is but one in a library of books. And, by the way, there is no way Revelation could stand on its own. It is a summary of the history of salvation completely impenetrable without the rest of Scripture and Tradition.

45 posted on 07/10/2014 9:05:42 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; NKP_Vet

RE: This guy has no understanding of Sola Scriptura.

He is describing solo scriptura.

_______________________________________

Many Roman Catholic energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call Solo Scriptura.

Here the person affirms that all he needs is himself and his Bible. The wisdom of the church in history, the community of believers, studying scripture humbly together, are all deemed irrelevant to understanding the things of God. Solo scriptura is reprehensible and ignorant and a-historical.

But many Roman Catholics continue to erect this strawman and then call it Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors.

It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds.

It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants.

But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay (yes, Popes and Saints included ).

And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon.

Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house” (Matthew 9:1-8).

Here’s the other thing that might surprise the Catholic.... I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions.

1) First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead like Christ and His apostles and prophets did.

2) Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them?

3) In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra.

First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.

But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are.

I want the Roman Catholic to show me a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements.

Finally, when we talk about the problem of interpretation we run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress.

That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that church tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture.

Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation?

Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.

But let’s stop here.

I believe that Scripture is God’s word and it is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says.

It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work.

I get suspicious of anyone who tells me that MORE is required to understand, or MORE is required to obey.


46 posted on 07/10/2014 9:07:23 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
QUOTE:"Sola Scriptura does beg a question: what, outside of Scripture, is needed for the salvation of a soul?"

Salvation is not found in sola scriptura, not is it found in anything out side of scripture. Salvation is found in the person, Jesus Christ. When one is born again, they become members of his church. Walking the aisle, being confirmed, signing a card or joining a church are ALL man made rituals!

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

John 20:31 "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

It is sad you are convinced your salvation is in your church membership and your eucharist, because, according to the Bible, you are sorely mistaken!

47 posted on 07/10/2014 9:08:16 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
48 posted on 07/10/2014 9:10:39 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people

Jude

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

Gal 1:8

I am NOT by any means a perfect nor near perfect Christian but my ability to read is fairly certain.


49 posted on 07/10/2014 9:11:19 PM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Only feeble minded children need someone “learned” to explain the plain language of the Bible to them. Only sheep blindly accept the “authority” of those who claim themselves to be the only way to enter Gods kingdom.

You might want to go back to Scripture on that... Interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private revelation (2 Peter 1:20). Left to our own devices, we distort Scripture in our lack of understanding to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

More on the problems with Sola Scriptura from a previous discussion. We tend to do this a lot around here...

50 posted on 07/10/2014 9:11:38 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-275 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson