firedragon
Veteran Member
Okay. I shall rephrase it to "following the institution".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sola Scriptura - heresy against God or man's institution?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
Okay. I shall rephrase it to "following the institution".
Fair enough - my question still stands.
Why would believing that the Bible is not the only source of doctrine necessarily imply following any particular church?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Hmm. Interesting. So what do you suggest it is?
What do I suggest what is?
And BTW: you kinda skipped over the part where I asked you to give an argument for sola scriptura.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Not all scholars are christian and their opinions christian or not would not affect their studies and findings. I haven't heard any christian regardless the denomination say god didn't write the bible. Most likely 99% (more than a half) christians say god wrote the bible because the people who wrote it were inspired by god.
Sola scriptura is mostly saying "all authority and interpretation comes from god." Catholicsm is more "all authority and interpretation comes from the Apostles."
Maybe the people are a bit off put but not their theology
firedragon
Veteran Member
1. Well. I am no Christian. But since you asked.
In the Bible, 2nd Timothy, Paul is addressing the recipients and telling them to be convinced in what they have learned and that all scripture is God Breathed. Last bit of 2nd Timothy, chapter 3. It is not telling them that in the future there will be an Ecclesiast and to follow them for doctrine. It calling the recipient to the Bible, and what Paul says in it.
In Ephssians chapter 3 he is clearly saying that "in reading this you will be able to understand my insight". He is referring to his letter.
Matthew chapter four Jesus says that "People do not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God". It is calling you towards the word of God, not the word of an institution.
Psalm 19 says that Gods word is the clarity. Deuteronomy 30:11 says that what God commands you today is not too difficult to understand, neither is it far off.
John 5:39 says You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that in them you possess eternal life. Specific.
One could go on quoting verse after verse if you like mate.
2. You said "Why would believing that the Bible is not the only source of doctrine necessarily imply following any particular church?". If believing the Bible is not the only source of doctrine, if not the church, what else do you suggest that means you would follow? I hope you understand the Question.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
0. Orthodoxy: God+Church+People,
Apostasy stages are:
1. Catholicism: Church+People, (faking faith in God).
2. Protestantism: People, (fake faith in God and no trust in the Church).
3. Science: fight using Darwinian Evolution the Orthodoxy. The secularism, the separation of Church and State,
4. Atheism: admitting with joy, pride and without shame the death of God, and Church, no faking of faith.
5. Trans-humanism: No God, No Church, No People: Total Death.
6. Hell: the Second Death.
Actually, the Catholic position is prima scriptura: the Bible is the main source of doctrine and it takes precedence over all other sources of doctrine.
In practice, this is also the approach that most so-called "sola scriptura" churches follow; they're just less honest about what they're doing than the Catholic Church is.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
(I read it) But the prime authority in the Church is the Church. It's based on scripture but in order for a catholic to understand scripture, he interacts as part of the Church or Mass. The difference between the two is the Church doesn't use the literal bible to authenticate itself. It uses Sacred Tradition. Of course both sides believe the bible is the source. They just have different views on what authenticates that source.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Err. I didn't say all scholars are Christian so that was irrelevant.
Maybe you have not heard Christians say God didn't write the Bible. Sorry mate, that's not what Christian scholars say almost as a whole.
I just quoted you one of the most evangelical Christians, James white who says "I dont know who wrote Hebrews". I mean the book Hebrews of the New Testament.
If you think all Christian scholars believe that "God wrote the Bible" then you will find it surprising to find the whole of New Testament study material taught by Christian scholars should be thrown away. All the curriculum down the drain. How do you explain the Synoptic Problem, or the criterion of authentication, what about all other textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, Narrative Criticism, etc etc etc?
Peace.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Hmm yeah. I must agree with that I suppose.
Brian2
Veteran Member
No that is not my belief but I see nothing wrong with following traditions in various groups as long as they do not contradict the teachings of the Bible and are harmless.
Not all traditions become part of the gospel.
firedragon
Veteran Member
It was a power game brother. The early church held the monopoly in the Bible as you all know and people didn't have access to it. Thus they had to depend on the church's instructions. Just imagine them doing "indulgence" if you have heard of it. Where in the world did they get that from?
The repercussion of that kind of oppression will generally call for revolt and that's what Lutherans did. This was it. So Sola Scriptura was born, and the power divide always calls for orthodoxy and heresy. So obviously Sola Scriptura was named a heresy.
In the modern day things are very different and you are very very specifically talking from that point of view.
It takes a fair bit of mental gymnastics to take an author writing something like "everything that I consider scripture is good" and twist this into "nothing comes from God except the writings some synod centuries from now will decide are canonical."
Well, the sola scriptura position would suggest that there must be something. You've got about a century from the purported death of Jesus until the last book in (what we now consider to be) the canon was written. In this century, Christians didn't have the living Jesus to teach them directly and didn't have the full Bible, yet Christianity carried on.
In any case, most Christians worldwide today take "Holy Tradition" as another source of doctrine.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats not what the verse says mate. It doesn't say "traditions become Gospel".
Anyway, when I said "you" I didn't mean you personally. I meant as a general statement to everyone as an address.
Arr you talking about the era where the cast majority of people were illiterate, and where books were copied by hand?
They got it from the Bible.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats not the topic. If you wish to discuss the canon and when it was canonised, books, authors, validity etc etc its for another thread and another topic. Even if the Bible is complete forgery or false or mans work or whatever you wish to believe it is, the topic is still relevant and precise to Sola Scriptura and the discussion surrounding it.
I think the same answer as above.
And about the holy tradition matter you cited, it is obvious that they do take tradition for doctrine. Of course. The post was written on that premise.
Anyway, cheers.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I referred specifically to The Lutheran revolt.
Well, I would like to see the Bible proposing "Indulgence". Please quote me the Bible.
Cheers.
We're talking about the Bible verses you say argue for sola scriptura.
In most of those cases, you need to make some very strange assumptions about what the author means by "scripture" in order to spin these verses into having anything at all to do with sola scriptura. What I'm saying is that these authors probably meant "scripture" to mean the scriptures they were familiar with. For instance, in the epistles where Paul talks about how good and useful scripture is, I think it's a safe bet to assume that by "scripture," he means the Torah.
But pretty much all of the verses you cited miss the mark. They can all be used to support prima scriptura as well, so they're useless for arguing for sola scriptura over prima scriptura.
Remember what you're arguing against: prima scriptura says that the Bible is the best and most important source of doctrine; sola scriptura says that the Bible is the only source of doctrine.
Verses about how the Bible comes from God don't help your case. What you need are verses that argue that anything not from the Bible doesn't come from God.