Sola Scriptura - heresy against God or man's institution?

[firedragon]

Oh yes we keep hearing about the Sola Scriptura heresy all the time like little bombs in conversation. This is a division of thought in many many religions but the phrase "Sola Scriptura" directly reminds the Christian-Lutheran position and the opposing institutionalised elders.

The irony is noticing the protestants themselves calling this a heresy sometimes in discussion while also quoting patristic evidences when needed for doctrine, yet as I know the official position may conflict with some.

The point to ponder is if God had something to do with the Bible (or any scripture for that matter) why would it be a heresy to stick to his book? Was it the church which is an institution made by man who made it a heresy to hold on to a power they consume and are used to?

Why still and why now?

 

[McBell]

The one thing I have as yet to see a Sola Scritualist present is the verse(s) from the Bible that claim Sola Scritura.

 

[firedragon]

The one thing I have as yet to see a Sola Scritualist present is the verse(s) from the Bible that claim Sola Scritura.

Hmm. Is it necessary for the Bible to claim Sola Scriptura? If that is the case, does the Bible tell the reader to follow the church elders and clergy instead?

 

[stvdv]

Oh yes we keep hearing about the Sola Scriptura heresy all the time like little bombs in conversation.

IMO:
Exactly "little bombs". It is the war the Christians fight to "conquer" the world with their belief, also called proselytizing.
Church means business. Money rules the world. Using "Sola Scriptura" is a smart way to sell your belief. They added "Hell" as an incentive.

 

[firedragon]

IMO:
Exactly "little bombs". It is the war the Christians fight to "conquer" the world with their belief, also called proselytizing.
Church means business. Money rules the world. Using "Sola Scriptura" is a smart way to sell your belief. They added "Hell" as an incentive.

This heresy business seems to be very common in all religions. Even in the non-theistic faith of Buddhism the Mahayana and Heenayana called each other heretics and shunned each other with brand new heresies.

 

[McBell]

Hmm. Is it necessary for the Bible to claim Sola Scriptura? If that is the case, does the Bible tell the reader to follow the church elders and clergy instead?

It is if they are claiming it to be scriptural.
Not all Sola Scipturalists make that claim.
But many do.

My experience with Sola Scipturalists is that they make the claim of Sola Scriptura simply because they think it to be an ace in the hole.

 

[exchemist]

Oh yes we keep hearing about the Sola Scriptura heresy all the time like little bombs in conversation. This is a division of thought in many many religions but the phrase "Sola Scriptura" directly reminds the Christian-Lutheran position and the opposing institutionalised elders.

The irony is noticing the protestants themselves calling this a heresy sometimes in discussion while also quoting patristic evidences when needed for doctrine, yet as I know the official position may conflict with some.

The point to ponder is if God had something to do with the Bible (or any scripture for that matter) why would it be a heresy to stick to his book? Was it the church which is an institution made by man who made it a heresy to hold on to a power they consume and are used to?

Why still and why now?

I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think anyone in Christianity thinks it a heresy to "stick to" what is in the bible. The problems with trying to base faith solely on this, however, are immediately apparent, given that one must first of all agree on what the bible says, in other words how to interpret it. The traditional branches of Christianity adhere not only to the bible but also to the authority of the spiritual descendants of the Apostles, in guiding the faithful on how to interpret it. The sola scriptura branches avoid this approach, due the contamination that has historically occurred in this process - as Luther bravely pointed out - but the snag is that it leaves everyone to interpret it by himself, which can lead to reinventing the wheel all the time, sometimes badly.

There is no perfect solution to this, but it seems to me that the thought of bishops and theologians of the church down the ages is likely to be helpful, rather than a hindrance, compared to what the average Joe, or self-appointed pastor, dreams up for himself.

 

[stvdv]

This heresy business seems to be very common in all religions. Even in the non-theistic faith of Buddhism the Mahayana and Heenayana called each other heretics and shunned each other with brand new heresies.

So, probably it's more a human thing, and not so much a religious thing. Even Atheists can be very "religious" about things sometimes

 

[firedragon]

It is if they are claiming it to be scriptural.
Not all Sola Scipturalists make that claim.
But many do.

My experience with Sola Scipturalists is that they make the claim of Sola Scriptura simply because they think it to be an ace in the hole.

I could be wrong, but isn't it a valid claim?

You see the logic is, the Bible is the most authentic scripture for Christian doctrine, but institutions can be wrong, mislead or/and corrupt by nature, thus it is prudent to be Sola Scriptura. So the point is the claim of Sola Scriptura is not because the book tells them to be, but is just a natural deduction.

My point was that if the book has to tell you to be either Sola Scriptura or otherwise, where in the Bible does it tell you to bank on the institution, vis a vis, against Sola Scriptura.

Hope you understand my question.

 

[firedragon]

So, probably it's more a human thing, and not so much a religious thing. Even Atheists can be very "religious" about things sometimes

Many atheists are more religious than the theists. I agree.

This is of course not a religious thing, its a people thing.

 

[firedragon]

I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think anyone in Christianity thinks it a heresy to "stick to" what is in the bible.

Yes they do. Thats the whole point.

I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think anyone in Christianity thinks it a heresy to "stick to" what is in the bible. The problems with trying to base faith solely on this, however, are immediately apparent, given that one must first of all agree on what the bible says, in other words how to interpret it. The traditional branches of Christianity adhere not only to the bible but also to the authority of the spiritual descendants of the Apostles, in guiding the faithful on how to interpret it. The sola scriptura branches avoid this approach, due the contamination that has historically occurred in this process - as Luther bravely pointed out - but the snag is that it leaves everyone to interpret it by himself, which can lead to reinventing the wheel all the time, sometimes badly.

There is no perfect solution to this, but it seems to me that the thought of bishops and theologians of the church down the ages is likely to be helpful, rather than a hindrance, compared to what the average Joe, or self-appointed pastor, dreams up for himself.

See, another question would arise. If the institution is helpful, not a hindrance, how come some 200 million people died in the protestant uprising of The Lutheran revolution? Most about-turn reforms in the world has been as bloody as an overthrow of a monarchy by siege.

Also, think of all the denominations in the world. According to some, there was an official listing of over 30k denominations of Christianity only in Africa. In this case how has the institution helped? With this kind of thinking can it not be deemed that it is the institution that is the hindrance?

 

[EsonauticSage]

On the top list of stupid things that a person could do Protestants hit a jackpot with Sola Scriptura

 

[firedragon]

On the top list of stupid things that a person could do Protestants hit a jackpot with Sola Scriptura

Why?

 

[Brian2]

I could be wrong, but isn't it a valid claim?

You see the logic is, the Bible is the most authentic scripture for Christian doctrine, but institutions can be wrong, mislead or/and corrupt by nature, thus it is prudent to be Sola Scriptura. So the point is the claim of Sola Scriptura is not because the book tells them to be, but is just a natural deduction.

My point was that if the book has to tell you to be either Sola Scriptura or otherwise, where in the Bible does it tell you to bank on the institution, vis a vis, against Sola Scriptura.

Hope you understand my question.

2Thess 2:14 To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter. 16Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who by grace has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope,…

We have written traditions and those traditions handed down orally as long as we feel we can trust those traditions handed down orally to be not just things made up over the years.
Still we could just keep them anyway as long as they do not contradict what has been passed down in writing.

Mark 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down.

 

[firedragon]

2Thess 2:14 To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter. 16Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who by grace has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope,…

We have written traditions and those traditions handed down orally as long as we feel we can trust those traditions handed down orally to be not just things made up over the years.
Still we could just keep them anyway as long as they do not contradict what has been passed down in writing.

Mark 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down.

Thats a letter written to the Thessalonians, so it is telling people to follow the traditions they were taught at the time. Dont you think? Also, dont you think the verse 14 is directly telling you that the glory of lord Jesus Christ was procured from/through the Good News or the Gospel? So by bring traditions of the church into it, are you saying what the church says till today is considered the Gospel?

If you think this applies to you to follow the traditions your church taught yesterday, tomorrow will have new traditions that were taught today. So basically the religion is changing everyday since everyday some new tradition is taught.

Is that your belief?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point to ponder is if God had something to do with the Bible (or any scripture for that matter) why would it be a heresy to stick to his book?

One issue: it's self-refuting. Sola scriptura is not a sola scriptura doctrine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh yes we keep hearing about the Sola Scriptura heresy all the time like little bombs in conversation. This is a division of thought in many many religions but the phrase "Sola Scriptura" directly reminds the Christian-Lutheran position and the opposing institutionalised elders.

The irony is noticing the protestants themselves calling this a heresy sometimes in discussion while also quoting patristic evidences when needed for doctrine, yet as I know the official position may conflict with some.

The point to ponder is if God had something to do with the Bible (or any scripture for that matter) why would it be a heresy to stick to his book? Was it the church which is an institution made by man who made it a heresy to hold on to a power they consume and are used to?

Why still and why now?

It makes sense if you want to know about god, a believer would go to the bible. It doesn't need to be written literally in scripture to know if you want to know about something, read the source. Also, because sola scripturians believe god wrote the bible, it would make sense they'd go to the bible as the Word of God in order to know what he says. It's more of a common sense thing. I disagree that it needs to be literally written in the bible for it to have any value towards the christian faith. But I do understand the intent.

Likewise, I understand the intent of people in the Church. For example, when a catholic prays instead of using the bible he or she prays directly to god within communion. Their relationship with god and know what he says about things is little from the source of Mass and the cornerstone of it: communion aka christ. So, the bible is important, yes but they find it better to go to christ personally rather than his words in a book. It's also better to go personally because the bible has many authors, translations, outside our time zone, and definitely not in every person's cultural context to even consider it being words of god.

I understand both views. If I picked which one makes more sense, I'd say the churches views. But neither are against the bible and I wouldn't see a need for scripture to say the words sola scriptura to imply regardless the stance, reading the bible is more important to know what god says.

 

[firedragon]

One issue: it's self-refuting. Sola scriptura is not a sola scriptura doctrine.

Well, that can be argued both ways.

Also, worshiping the institution is also arguably not scriptural.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, that can be argued both ways.

It can? All right - go ahead, then.

Also, worshiping the institution is also arguably not scriptural.

Why would rejecting sola scriptura imply "worshipping the institution?"

 

[firedragon]

It makes sense if you want to know about god, a believer would go to the bible. It doesn't need to be written literally in scripture to know if you want to know about something, read the source. Also, because sola scripturians believe god wrote the bible, it would make sense they'd go to the bible as the Word of God in order to know what he says. It's more of a common sense thing. I disagree that it needs to be literally written in the bible for it to have any value towards the christian faith. But I do understand the intent.

Likewise, I understand the intent of people in the Church. For example, when a catholic prays instead of using the bible he or she prays directly to god within communion. Their relationship with god and know what he says about things is little from the source of Mass and the cornerstone of it: communion aka christ. So, the bible is important, yes but they find it better to go to christ personally rather than his words in a book. It's also better to go personally because the bible has many authors, translations, outside our time zone, and definitely not in every person's cultural context to even consider it being words of god.

I understand both views. If I picked which one makes more sense, I'd say the churches views. But neither are against the bible and I wouldn't see a need for scripture to say the words sola scriptura to imply regardless the stance, reading the bible is more important to know what god says.

Yes I agree.

Yet I would like to make a correction if you dont mind. I doubt its necessarily true that "Sola Scriptura Christians believe that God wrote the Bible". In fact, there are bible scholars who believe in Sola Scriptura while also believing that God didn't write the Bible. They believe who ever wrote the Bible, it is the most authentic source of theology and there is no other way but Sola Scriptura.

Lets say a new scholar like James white would say "I dont know who wrote Hebrews", but he is a proponent of Sola Scriptura.