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

[firedragon]

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.

It says "scripture" and Sola Scriptura is about "Scripture".

"What is Scripture" is another topic.

Haha. Mate. I think you are just looking for an argument you are trying to build on your own. This is not my case. I am not a Christian. I gave those verses because you asked for it. And you have only looked at one verse which says "Scripture is from God". The argument is that the Bible does not tell you to go looking for ecclesias for doctrine, it tells you over and over again to look at scripture. Thats whole point you have missed. Thats not my argument because I am not propagating the Bible mate, so I am not arguing against Prima Scriptura. Anyway Prima Scriptura was a response, not patristic in nature.

And not really. Paul referring to "Scripture" probably meant the Tanakh, not only the Torah. But later when he was writing about following his tradition and his interpretation/insight he was referring to his letter. That particular letter. He is simply asking the addressee to follow his letter to the tee.

 

[firedragon]

So then yes.


Matthew 18:18-20.

Brother. The verse you quoted is "Against indulgence".

 

[Brian2]

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.

Certainly the Scriptures Alone is a wrong teaching in the Catholic way of looking at things but it is not a heresy to the extent that those who hold to it are excluded from being Christian.

 

[firedragon]

Certainly the Scriptures Alone is a wrong teaching in the Catholic way of looking at things but it is not a heresy to the extent that those who hold to it are excluded from being Christian.

It was considered a serious heresy mate. This was questioning the Pope's authority. The survival of the church was threatened. People were called Heretics. People were killed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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 know. It was a comment to what you're saying. Christian believers say god wrote the bible. Assuming christian scholars have no religious bias, they would come to a different conclusion. I'm not talking about scholars but christian believers.

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?

I never mentioned christian scholars. I'm not sure why you originally brought it up. I'd have to re-read the OP cause I thought it was just christian views.

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?

That's fine and all. It doesn't dismiss my point that catholics go to christ through Mass and sola scripturas come to christ through scripture. Their history and people's biases about them is not near the point as the theology in itself. I understand both views. I personally side with the catholics if choosing between the two because it is highly circular to say "the bible is true because the bible says itself is true." No scholar or any person looking objectively at the bible would conclude that it proves itself valid.

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.

It does make sense though.

In the modern day things are very different and you are very very specifically talking from that point of view.

Not sure where you're getting at with this statement.

Both sola scriptura and sacred tradition views make sense. Both sides call each other wrong all they want, but the sense is the same-they both depend on christ whether through sacred tradition or physical scripture. The source is the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Brother. The verse you quoted is "Against indulgence".

Don't call me "brother."

And the verse speaks to an authority granted by Jesus to release people from punishment in Heaven as they see fit.

 

[firedragon]

I never mentioned christian scholars. I'm not sure why you originally brought it up. I'd have to re-read the OP cause I thought it was just christian views.

Because Christian scholars are Christian.

Anyway, cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Don't call me "brother."

And the verse speaks to an authority granted by Jesus to release people from punishment in Heaven as they see fit.

You can complain to the admins that I called you "brother" and you have a problem with that.

That verse does not promote indulgence.

Bye.

 

[exchemist]

Yes they do. Thats the whole point.



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?

OK help me with this, then - you may have researched it in a way that I have not. Who thinks sticking to the bible is heresy and what examples of this do you have?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because Christian scholars are Christian.

Anyway, cheers.

Scholars can be Christian, atheist, so have you. The study of scripture has nothing to do with what the person believes. It's a job or academic. So, a Christian scholar may say the Trinity doesn't exist in the Bible but when looking at his Christian believe, he feels it does.

An atheist scholar studying Christian scripture may derive the same conclusion as a Christian scholar studying the same scripture. Scripture study shouldn't be bias.

So, I'm talking about Christian believers. Believers believe that God wrote the Bible. Scholars (Christian, atheist, etc) may find otherwise.

Studying Christian scripture doesn't mean the scholar agrees spiritually to what he finds.

 

[Brian2]

It was considered a serious heresy mate. This was questioning the Pope's authority. The survival of the church was threatened. People were called Heretics. People were killed.

That was the Church of the time in which the Reformation happened, and no doubt was needed.
Times have changed and Catholic Church has changed also.
The reformation and it's extremes should not divide Christians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can complain to the admins that I called you "brother" and you have a problem with that.

What an unbrotherly response.

That verse does not promote indulgence.

Seems to me that it does: Jesus granted someone the power to release people from divine punishments and said that God would respect their decisions.

The idea behind an indulgence - i.e. that prayer and acts of piety on someone's behalf should be taken into account when deciding to release the person being prayed for from punishment - is in line with this passage.

The only real question I see for you to raise is whether the Catholic Church represents the specific group of people that Jesus granted this authority to.

 

[firedragon]

OK help me with this, then - you may have researched it in a way that I have not. Who thinks sticking to the bible is heresy and what examples of this do you have?

Sola Scriptura.

If you are looking for some internet links I dont normally do that. But for lists, wikipedia is not bad I suppose.

List of heresies in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

Category:Heresy in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

If you are looking to read up on a theological perspective of a preacher/professor Keith Mathison wrote a book called the shape of Sola Scriptura. You will see why and how its turned into a heresy by the dogma of the papal infallibility.

If you wish to read an earlier church father who called them heretics, even before The Lutheran uprising, a thousand years prior you should read Vinventii Lerinensis. This before the use of the phrase Sola Scriptura but he describes it as a heresy and a use of heretics. The usage of "Satan the head of heretics" and "Christ the head of Catholics" clearly outcasts them saying "either you are a catholic headed by Christ or you are a heretic headed by Satan.

Loewenich quotes L’Osservatore Romano stating Martin Luther as a heretic preaching Heresy. His heresies include Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.

Read up on Christopher Ocker who wrote the book "Luther, Conflict and Christendom" and you will understand how severe the heresy was to the church where Luther's organisation of communities on the foundation of Sola Scriptura.

If you wish just simple statements that speaks directly to you read Gillian Evans book A history of heresies. Read the chapter called "The Bible in the hands of heretics".

I dont know if this is what you are looking for.

 

[firedragon]

That was the Church of the time in which the Reformation happened, and no doubt was needed.
Times have changed and Catholic Church has changed also.
The reformation and it's extremes should not divide Christians.

Well, the discussion is not about what was needed or not and I believe you are saying this "needed" thing because you dont know much about what actually went on.

Yes yes, times have changed.

Cheers.

 

[exchemist]

It was considered a serious heresy mate. This was questioning the Pope's authority. The survival of the church was threatened. People were called Heretics. People were killed.

I think you are confusing two things here. It was considered a heresy to disagree with the Catholic Church's teaching, as authorised by the pope.

But that is quite different from saying that "sticking to the bible" was considered heresy, which what you originally said.
What was heresy in effect was maintaining different interpretations of the bible from those authorised by the church.

By the way the modern Catholic view of Protestantism is summarised in this from Ratzinger (Benedict XVI):

"There is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.[49] "

 

[firedragon]

Scholars can be Christian, atheist, so have you. The study of scripture has nothing to do with what the person believes. It's a job or academic. So, a Christian scholar may say the Trinity doesn't exist in the Bible but when looking at his Christian believe, he feels it does.

An atheist scholar studying Christian scripture may derive the same conclusion as a Christian scholar studying the same scripture. Scripture study shouldn't be bias.

So, I'm talking about Christian believers. Believers believe that God wrote the Bible. Scholars (Christian, atheist, etc) may find otherwise.

Studying Christian scripture doesn't mean the scholar agrees spiritually to what he finds.

Muslim scholars are Muslim. Christian scholars are christian. Atheistic scholars are atheists. Chinese scholars are Chinese.

The scholarship maybe on the Bible, but an atheist' scholar is an atheist. A Christian scholar is a Christian.

I said Christian scholars. Not "Scholars of Christianity". Cmon mate.

 

[firedragon]

I think you are confusing two things here. It was considered a heresy to disagree with the Catholic Church's teaching, as authorised by the pope.

But that is quite different from saying that "sticking to the bible" was considered heresy, which what you originally said.
What was heresy in effect was maintaining different interpretations of the bible from those authorised by the church.

By the way the modern Catholic view of Protestantism is summarised in this from Ratzinger (Benedict XVI):

"There is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.[49] "

No. What I said is "a whole post". So take it holistically, not pick one word and make a mountain out of a mole ignoring the whole matter at hand.

And this is not about the "modern view of protestantism". This is about the OP.

 

[exchemist]

Sola Scriptura.

If you are looking for some internet links I dont normally do that. But for lists, wikipedia is not bad I suppose.

List of heresies in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

Category:Heresy in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

If you are looking to read up on a theological perspective of a preacher/professor Keith Mathison wrote a book called the shape of Sola Scriptura. You will see why and how its turned into a heresy by the dogma of the papal infallibility.

If you wish to read an earlier church father who called them heretics, even before The Lutheran uprising, a thousand years prior you should read Vinventii Lerinensis. This before the use of the phrase Sola Scriptura but he describes it as a heresy and a use of heretics. The usage of "Satan the head of heretics" and "Christ the head of Catholics" clearly outcasts them saying "either you are a catholic headed by Christ or you are a heretic headed by Satan.

Loewenich quotes L’Osservatore Romano stating Martin Luther as a heretic preaching Heresy. His heresies include Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.

Read up on Christopher Ocker who wrote the book "Luther, Conflict and Christendom" and you will understand how severe the heresy was to the church where Luther's organisation of communities on the foundation of Sola Scriptura.

If you wish just simple statements that speaks directly to you read Gillian Evans book A history of heresies. Read the chapter called "The Bible in the hands of heretics".

I dont know if this is what you are looking for.

Thanks I now understand, I think, what you are saying. I was taking your phrase "sticking to the bible" to mean "not deviating from what is in it". Whereas you mean sola scriptura, which implies not only that but also not adding anything, beyond what directly written in it. That idea rejects a lot of theology and doctrine built up by the church through the ages and endorsed by the bishops and the pope. So the "heresy" was this rejection of the added theology and doctrine, rather than the idea of abiding by what is in the bible.

See also my other post.

 

[firedragon]

What an unbrotherly response.


Seems to me that it does: Jesus granted someone the power to release people from divine punishments and said that God would respect their decisions.

The idea behind an indulgence - i.e. that prayer and acts of piety on someone's behalf should be taken into account when deciding to release the person being prayed for from punishment - is in line with this passage.

The only real question I see for you to raise is whether the Catholic Church represents the specific group of people that Jesus granted this authority to.

Nope. But thanks.

 

[exchemist]

No. What I said is "a whole post". So take it holistically, not pick one word and make a mountain out of a mole ignoring the whole matter at hand.

And this is not about the "modern view of protestantism". This is about the OP.

I'm trying to deal with the whole matter at hand, but to do so requires understanding exactly what you mean by the terms you use.

Hence my focus on your phrase "sticking to the bible", which I seem I have read differently from what you may have meant by it.