Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer

We don’t need anything beyond the Bible. — But .... where does it say that in the Bible?

“Well, the doctrine of sola Scriptura simply states 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 to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby.

Now I want you to recognize that I am emphasizing that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is based upon the inspiration of Scripture. Now that term, inspiration, that you will find, for example, in II Timothy 3:16, is really not the best way of rendering the term. The Greek term, theopneustos, is best rendered as “God-breathed.” And in fact, in the New International Version, that is how it is rendered. In II Timothy 3:16 we read that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.” We learn from this that Scripture’s authority is God’s authority. You don’t have Scriptural authority over here then God’s authority over here. You don’t have different authorities in the Church. The authority of the Church is one: God’s authority. And when God speaks in Scripture that carries His authority.

Notice, for example, from the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 22 when he is talking with the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he says, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God, for in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels in Heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead have you not read what God spoke to you, saying ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.’” Please notice that from the Lord Jesus’ perspective that which was found in Scripture was God speaking and he held those men responsible for what God had said to them, even though what was spoken had been written a thousand years earlier. Scripture is God speaking to man. It is theopneustos. God-breathed...’

But there is a flip side as well. If more is required, then...

“Well, the Roman Catholic position must demonstrate that that the “oral tradition” that is supposed to exist not only contains revelation from God that differs in content from what is found in the New Testament, but that this “oral tradition” is theopneustos, that is, God-breathed, inspired. Without such a demonstration, the denial of sola Scriptura is empty and meaningless.”

Church fathers, like Luther or Calvin or others I respect, can make serious errors. Their words are helpful at times, and harmful in others. Only scripture is “God-breathed”.

When it is an additional teaching, such as the assumption of Mary, I don’t see value in getting worked up. I don’t believe it, but I don’t care if others do.

When the teaching is contrary, such as Purgatory or Indulgences, then it is important to point out that conflict.

I’ve read some of the church fathers lately. I find value in some, but there is ample error mixed in - as can be found in Luther’s writings. They add perspective, but it is critical to compare their teachings to scripture.


47 posted on 08/30/2009 5:29:25 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

Excellent post, Mr R. Thank you.


48 posted on 08/30/2009 6:19:45 PM PDT by boatbums (A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
...the Catholic position must demonstrate that that the “oral tradition” that is supposed to exist not only contains revelation from God that differs in content from what is found in the New Testament...

Nope.

50 posted on 08/30/2009 6:31:47 PM PDT by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

You’re quoting someone.

Why don’t you say whom you were quoting?


51 posted on 08/30/2009 6:34:25 PM PDT by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
When Man-Made Tradition impugns
the Holy Word of Elohim,
it must be rejected.

As you noted Yah'shua rebuked both Sadducees and Pharisees
for preferring Oral Tradition over the Holy Word of Elohim.

The Roman church follows in the footsteps
of both the Sadducees and Pharisees.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

269 posted on 09/01/2009 9:18:26 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

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