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

[firedragon]

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.

Okay okay. No worries. Mate, read the whole post. Its all about Sola Scriptura. The topic name is just that.

Yet I must apologise you said to read your other post. I seem to not find it for some reason.

 

[Muffled]

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 believe it is a heresy to say that God has nothing left to say.

I believe we have seen the version of RCC thinking anything but its own doctrine was heresy no matter where it came from replete with inquisition tortures and burning at the stake.

 

[firedragon]

I believe it is a heresy to say that God has nothing left to say.

I believe we have seen the version of RCC thinking anything but its own doctrine was heresy no matter where it came from replete with inquisition tortures and burning at the stake.

Yep. Spoken like who I described.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe evidence for that would have to be non-Biblical. But then that is circular reasoning, isn't it?

 

[Muffled]

Yep. Spoken like who I described.

I had elders in a church tell me that the qu'ran could not be the word of God because God had decided not to have anything written after thee Bible. I believe that was not biblicaly based but just their personal bias.

 

[exchemist]

Okay okay. No worries. Mate, read the whole post. Its all about Sola Scriptura. The topic name is just that.

Yet I must apologise you said to read your other post. I seem to not find it for some reason.

I meant 55 (which you have read) and 58.

 

[firedragon]

I had elders in a church tell me that the qu'ran could not be the word of God because God had decided not to have anything written after thee Bible. I believe that was not biblicaly based but just their personal bias.

Okay. I can't understand the relevance to the thread.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe that is a jaundiced way of viewing it. We believe we are doing people a favor even though we are obligated by God to do it.

 

[Muffled]

Okay. I can't understand the relevance to the thread.

I believe what they are saying is that sola scriptura just means the Bible (Protestant) and nothing else.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

This is what I was thinking.

So you're saying christian believers are wrong in their belief in the trinity because christian scholars think otherwise?

 

[firedragon]

I meant 55 (which you have read) and 58.

Oh okay. Got it.

Bro. Sola Scriptura has much bigger impact than you have stipulated. Luther applied to organisation of the community. Its not just a faith matter, it is a matter of governance. It was significant enough to discuss at the council of Trent. See the basic doctrine is that you dont need an authority of the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible, and you dont need the church to dictate what your faith on christ is and in 518 Luther began his exit form the church gradually. But this simple approach is not so simple for the church because it was poised to have such a big impact on the "monarchy" of the church. If you read the Hubert Jedin book on the council of Trent you will see it clearly described as "principle of the Bible alone". Sola Fide was also discussed but Sola Scriptura was their more serious matter.

 

[firedragon]

I believe what they are saying is that sola scriptura just means the Bible (Protestant) and nothing else.

Who is saying?

Who said Sola Scriptura just means the Bible (Protestant) and nothing else? I can't remember seeing a post like that honestly.

 

[firedragon]

This is what I was thinking.

So you're saying christian believers are wrong in their belief in the trinity because christian scholars think otherwise?

1. Err. How did the trinity come in to this subject?

2. Who said anything about "wrong in their belief"?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

1. Err. How did the trinity come in to this subject?

2. Who said anything about "wrong in their belief"?

Man I'm confused. It throws me off when I'm trying to clarify more than I am responding.

Edit... my point still stands, though, that sola scriptura and sacred tradition both come from the same source. I don't see one as right or wrong. Are you saying that christian believers who believe the bible come from the word of god while christian scholars do not? They are in conflict with each other?

 

[firedragon]

Man I'm confused. It throws me off when I'm trying to clarify more than I am responding

Mate. You are claiming I said things which I never did. The topic is explained in the OP. It has nothing about the trinity, nor is it about if it is right or wrong to believe in the trinity or anything of the sort whatsoever. Thats completely and utterly irrelevant.

What I said was Christian scholars without knowing who wrote a particular book in the New Testament will still believe in "Sola Scriptura".

You keep ignoring the references. For the third time, James White being an evangelical Christian, confesses no one knows who wrote the book of Hebrews (as an example) but he still proposers Sola Scriptura. Thats the whole point. You dont have to believe that "God wrote the Bible" to believe in Sola Scriptura.

You missed the whole point and went onto the Trinity which maybe you confused with another thread. I dont know I am guessing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See the basic doctrine is that you dont need an authority of the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible, and you dont need the church to dictate what your faith on christ is

What "the Bible" refers to is a product of the authority of the Church (the Synod of Hippo, specifically).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Mate. You are claiming I said things which I never did. The topic is explained in the OP. It has nothing about the trinity, nor is it about if it is right or wrong to believe in the trinity or anything of the sort whatsoever. Thats completely and utterly irrelevant.

What I said was Christian scholars without knowing who wrote a particular book in the New Testament will still believe in "Sola Scriptura".

You keep ignoring the references. For the third time, James White being an evangelical Christian, confesses no one knows who wrote the book of Hebrews (as an example) but he still proposers Sola Scriptura. Thats the whole point. You dont have to believe that "God wrote the Bible" to believe in Sola Scriptura.

You missed the whole point and went onto the Trinity which maybe you confused with another thread. I dont know I am guessing.

Please read the rest of my post. I edited it.

 

[firedragon]

What "the Bible" refers to is a product of the authority of the Church (the Synod of Hippo, specifically).

Which book of the Bible? Which church? How is the church described as authority exactly?

 

[firedragon]

Man I'm confused. It throws me off when I'm trying to clarify more than I am responding.

Edit... my point still stands, though, that sola scriptura and sacred tradition both come from the same source. I don't see one as right or wrong. Are you saying that christian believers who believe the bible come from the word of god while christian scholars do not? They are in conflict with each other?

Well, you changed your sentence from "God wrote the Bible" to "Bible come from the word of God".

Anyway, of course there is a conflict with anyone who says "God wrote the Bible" to "Christian scholar accepts he doesn't know who wrote Hebrews".

This is the fourth time I am mentioning this. Its kind of strange really.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, you changed your sentence from "God wrote the Bible" to "Bible come from the word of God".

Anyway, of course there is a conflict with anyone who says "God wrote the Bible" to "Christian scholar accepts he doesn't know who wrote Hebrews".

This is the fourth time I am mentioning this. Its kind of strange really.

Well, if christians say god wrote the bible, they aren't saying a being came down and scribbled his name. They're just saying that the authors of the bible were inspired by god and what the authors wrote (as god's reps), god wrote. So, in the christian's point of view, god actually "wrote" the bible.

I think it's more of a spiritual thing of god writing the bible and people's beliefs not a historical thing. Most christians know god didn't come down with paper and pen to write the bible. More say that the biblical authors were inspired. Just the "language" believers use determines how literal they take this. It doesn't change the theology nonetheless.

Whoever wrote hebrews must have been inspired by god in christian theology because spiritually, they are more concerned with the inspiration rather than the human authors.