• 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?

P

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
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?
Click to expand...

It seems to me...
that no matter how authoritative something is. It's authority is useless if not understood.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
A peril that I see in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that sometimes we witness people making money off it.

I was personally attending a lecture given by a charismatic preacher who also has written a book on the prosperity pursuit of biblical christians. At this seminar a young lady happened to ask about her church (another protestant church) teaching her that the rich cannot enter the kingdom just like a camel being unable to go through a needle-hole. This guys answer was that "it Sola Scriptura. We dont abide by that institution". I have seen and heard this many a time and has been some protestants reason to leave one church to another.

My question originally was about Sola Scriptura being called a heresy by some not as an honest to God heresy against God and Christ but a heresy against the institution of the church.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
firedragon said:
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?
Click to expand...
Who says it is?

firedragon said:
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?
Click to expand...
Jesus and the Twelve created the Church as it clearly shows in the Gospel and epistles as it is used 109 times: Bible, Revised Standard Version
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
firedragon said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's not heresy to "stick to The Book." But "The Book" is multivalent; it's not a Chilton's Manual. "The Book" is also only part of the teaching of God through the spiritual community. And the practice of arriving at a valid interpretation has historically correctly been done through the community, not through individual endeavor. The Apostles' teaching is largely their communal interpretation of "The Book." Sola scriptura, as handled by the typical Protestant fundigelical, is "church speak" for "I can interpret the Bible any way I want to (simply by giving it a surface reading) and then my interpretation carries all the authority of a book that I have raised to the status of "fell-out-of-the-sky-in-God's-own-hand" authority.

firedragon said:
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?
Click to expand...
"The Book" is also a man-made thing.

firedragon said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes. Paul admonishes us to "continue in the Apostle's teaching, in the breaking of bread (Eucharist), and 'the prayers' (the formulaic prayers of the community)."
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
firedragon said:
Yeah but that's not relevant because if you go to something like Trent its about 1500 years after Jesus and the so called "12".
Click to expand...
But the Twelve passed their Apostolic authority to others, and that authority is as valid as their own. It continues to the present day.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Unveiled Artist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's not out there. Most Christians whom I personally know claim that God didn't write the Bible. Including me. People wrote the Bible. "Inspiration" and "dictation" are two different things. The Bible comes to us through the lens of the community of the Faithful -- not "purely from God."

Unveiled Artist said:
Sola scriptura is mostly saying "all authority and interpretation comes from god." Catholicsm is more "all authority and interpretation comes from the Apostles."
Click to expand...
You've got that wrong. Most people I know who espouse sola scriptura think God wrote it. But the Catholic stance is prima scriptura -- "scripture first." There is a "tripod" that holds up doctrine: 1) scripture, 2) Tradition,3) reason. Catholics would say that all authority comes through the interpretation of the Church.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
It's not heresy to "stick to The Book." But "The Book" is multivalent; it's not a Chilton's Manual. "The Book" is also only part of the teaching of God through the spiritual community. And the practice of arriving at a valid interpretation has historically correctly been done through the community, not through individual endeavor. The Apostles' teaching is largely their communal interpretation of "The Book." Sola scriptura, as handled by the typical Protestant fundigelical, is "church speak" for "I can interpret the Bible any way I want to (simply by giving it a surface reading) and then my interpretation carries all the authority of a book that I have raised to the status of "fell-out-of-the-sky-in-God's-own-hand" authority.


"The Book" is also a man-made thing.


Yes. Paul admonishes us to "continue in the Apostle's teaching, in the breaking of bread (Eucharist), and 'the prayers' (the formulaic prayers of the community)."
Click to expand...

the topic is about Sola Scriptura. If you think it was not called a heresy its your prerogative.

Also you have not understood how it came about and why it was such an issue during the Trent times. You are guessing based on your assumptions. Read up on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top