sola scriptura,

[JLB]

JLB,

This is an excellent topic.

I suggest that we need to understand what sola scriptura meant at the time of the Reformation when it was introduced. It referred to:

1. Scripture being the supreme authority in the church. For the Reformers, it did not mean Scripture was the only authority. Reformers such as Luther, Calvin and others used the authority of reason as they explored the meaning of Scripture.

2. The sufficiency of Scripture was another dimension of sola scriptura. At the time of the Reformation, the RCC supplemented Scripture with rituals and unbiblical beliefs. So this teaching of sola scriptura was a call back to the sufficiency of Scripture.

3. Sola scriptura, for the Reformers, referred to the clarity of Scripture because all of Scripture is not crystal clear to all believers. It was a call to have pastor-teachers to help the laity understand Scripture (cf. Eph 4:11-12) to the way to salvation. The Reformers agreed certain parts of Scripture were difficult to understand.

See the article: The Real Meaning of Sola Scriptura (The Gospel Coalition, Australia edition).

Oz

Ok,

Thanks for clarifying what Sola Scriptura meant to the Reformers.


JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Hmmm, in the last four years I haven't read any, prior to that I was going through my baby berkof to check some of my understanding.

So, you haven't read Wayne Grudem's systematic theology, the 4 large vols by Norman Geisler, John Calvin, Millard Erickson, etc?

Seems to me that you are deficient in your understanding of theology but you still claim 'theology is man's attempt to rationalize the information found in scripture through the filter of beliefs biases'.

Don't you understand that is exactly what you do on this forum - filtering Scripture.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Ok,

Thanks for clarifying what Sola Scriptura meant to the Reformers.


JLB

Is that what you mean by sola scriptura in 2020?

 

[OzSpen]

A couple of points.
1. Regarding your first point, Scripture has no authority. It is authoritative, meaning true and reliable. Authority is something a person has. Jesus said all authority had been given him. He gave some of that authority to the apostles. This is recorded in Mt 28:18-20. There is no record of Jesus giving authority to a book. The problem the reformers has was that they rejected the authority that Jesus gave to the apostles, and their successors and therefore had to invent a false source of authority.

2. Regarding your second point, nowhere does Scripture claim it is sufficient. Such a belief in unbiblical.

Mungo,

I can accept your point in #1. God is the one who has authority and scriptural authority is derived from Him: 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God[a] may be competent, equipped for every good work' (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).

You say the sufficiency of Scripture is unbiblical. Let's check out Scripture:

In Colossians 2 (ESV) Paul warns the Colossians of what happens when the sufficiency of Scripture is integrated with non-biblical teaching. Col 2:8 (ESV) states: 'See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ'.

Jude 1:3 (ESV) has a similar message: 'Although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints'. So, The Bible is sufficient for contending for the faith. It is sufficient above theologians, scholars, pastors and denominations.

If I want to understand the nature of God, human beings, salvation and consequences of sin, heaven and hell, I don't go to check out Aristotle, Bart Ehrman, Norman Geisler, Mungo or Oz. I go to the Scriptures which are sufficient and God-breathed for these details.

Oz

 

[Mungo]

Mungo,

I can accept your point in #1. God is the one who has authority and scriptural authority is derived from Him:

Oz,
You contradict yourself in those two sentences. I said "Scripture has no authority".
You say you accept what I said but then go on to claim that Scripture has authority.

'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God[a] may be competent, equipped for every good work' (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).

Yes, I agree with that. - all Scripture is God breathed and useful.
Note - it doesn't say sufficient.

You say the sufficiency of Scripture is unbiblical. Let's check out Scripture:

In Colossians 2 (ESV) Paul warns the Colossians of what happens when the sufficiency of Scripture is integrated with non-biblical teaching. Col 2:8 (ESV) states: 'See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ'.

No Oz. Col 2:8 does not say scripture is sufficient. It's not in the text.

And you are making an assumption about something you have yet to prove, namely that all that Jesus taught is in Scripture. Scripture itself denies that (John 21:25)

Jesus wrote nothing down except some word in the dust. All Jesus' teaching was initially passed on orally. Some of that was written down and after much time and discussion was canonised as part of Scripture. We call that Sacred Scripture (or just Scripture).

More continued to be passed on orally, only slowly being written down. Catholics and Orthodox call this Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition with a capital 'T'). This is not the "human tradition" referred to in Col 2:8. It is as much God's word as Scripture.

Paul writes to Timothy "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]." (2Thess 2:15)

Jude 1:3 (ESV) has a similar message: 'Although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints'. So, The Bible is sufficient for contending for the faith. It is sufficient above theologians, scholars, pastors and denominations.

Again Oz, the text does not say that the Bible is sufficient for contending for the faith.
It doesn’t say that the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints is all contained in the Bible (which wasn't even compiled then). The faith that was delivered comprised both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

If I want to understand the nature of God, human beings, salvation and consequences of sin, heaven and hell, I don't go to check out Aristotle, Bart Ehrman, Norman Geisler, Mungo or Oz. I go to the Scriptures which are sufficient and God-breathed for these details.

Oz

I'm not suggesting you check out , Bart Ehrman, Norman Geisler, Mungo or Oz. That's a red herring.

Scripture nowhere says it is sufficient.

 

[Randy]

Is that what you mean by sola scriptura in 2020?

This is on the web. "sole source of authority"
Sola scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.
To me:
Christian theology should be based or sourced only from what is written in the NT, No other works, even if interpretation is debated.
In such debates "reason" is often used as well.

 

[Mungo]

This is on the web. "sole source of authority"
Sola scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.
To me:
Christian theology should be based or sourced only from what is written in the NT, No other works, even if interpretation is debated.
In such debates "reason" is often used as well.

Why do you restrict yourself like that?
What is your justification?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

God said, "Let there be light, and I woke up from a deep sleep.
But it took about another 5,700 years before I got a body.
Talk about back log.
But hey, it's all in the Bible.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,
You contradict yourself in those two sentences. I said "Scripture has no authority".
You say you accept what I said but then go on to claim that Scripture has authority.



Yes, I agree with that. - all Scripture is God breathed and useful.
Note - it doesn't say sufficient.




No Oz. Col 2:8 does not say scripture is sufficient. It's not in the text.

And you are making an assumption about something you have yet to prove, namely that all that Jesus taught is in Scripture. Scripture itself denies that (John 21:25)

Jesus wrote nothing down except some word in the dust. All Jesus' teaching was initially passed on orally. Some of that was written down and after much time and discussion was canonised as part of Scripture. We call that Sacred Scripture (or just Scripture).

More continued to be passed on orally, only slowly being written down. Catholics and Orthodox call this Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition with a capital 'T'). This is not the "human tradition" referred to in Col 2:8. It is as much God's word as Scripture.

Paul writes to Timothy "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]." (2Thess 2:15)

Again Oz, the text does not say that the Bible is sufficient for contending for the faith.
It doesn’t say that the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints is all contained in the Bible (which wasn't even compiled then). The faith that was delivered comprised both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I'm not suggesting you check out , Bart Ehrman, Norman Geisler, Mungo or Oz. That's a red herring.

Scripture nowhere says it is sufficient.

 

[OzSpen]

This is on the web. "sole source of authority"
Sola scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.
To me:
Christian theology should be based or sourced only from what is written in the NT, No other works, even if interpretation is debated.
In such debates "reason" is often used as well.

Randy,

Don't we reason from the Scriptures on this forum?

I note you do it here: "Christian theology should be based or sourced only from what is written in the NT, No other works, even if interpretation is debated. In such debates "reason" is often used as well".

What does it mean when Scripture states, 'God is spirit' (John 4:24)? How about 'Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in ufaith and love and holiness, with self-control' (1 Tim 2:15 ESV)?

Oz

 

[Randy]

Randy,

Don't we reason from the Scriptures on this forum?

I note you do it here: "Christian theology should be based or sourced only from what is written in the NT, No other works, even if interpretation is debated. In such debates "reason" is often used as well".

What does it mean when Scripture states, 'God is spirit' (John 4:24)? How about 'Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in ufaith and love and holiness, with self-control' (1 Tim 2:15 ESV)?

Oz

I didn't state we didn't reason on this forum. Don't we reason with what is written?
I would state God is Spirit means God is Spirit. He is not a carbon based life form is He?
I am not sure why child bearing has any bearing on anyone's salvation. The faith, love and holiness should apply to all.

 

[JLB]

Is that what you mean by sola scriptura in 2020?

What I mean by sola scripture, is scripture only to be the foundation of our beliefs and practices.


JLB

 

[OzSpen]

What I mean by sola scripture, is scripture only to be the foundation of our beliefs and practices.
JLB

JLB,

Are you saying that sola scriptura refers to the plain reading of the text, without interpretation?

How can a denomination or CFnet formulate a statement of faith without interpretation? My view is that interpretation is compulsory to differentiate: infant baptism from believers' baptism; Calvinism vs Arminianism; the deity of Christ; different views of the atonement; etc.

Do you see it a necessity that Scripture is the foundation of beliefs and practices wihout hermeneutics?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hmmm, in the last four years I haven't read any, prior to that I was going through my baby berkof to check some of my understanding.

WM,

So, you speak out of ignorance when you state: ' Theology as found in theological text books etc is not copied straight from scripture'. Baby Berkhof. You can read his whole Systematic Theology HERE. However, it dates back to 1949. I don't consider, with your minuscule amount of reading in this field, that you have adequate knowledge to make your statement about 'theological text books'.

Why did you make such a disparaging comment about theological text books?

Oz

 

[JLB]

Are you saying that sola scriptura refers to the plain reading of the text, without interpretation?

Qz, here is what I said —

What I mean by sola scripture, is scripture only to be the foundation of our beliefs and practices.

 

[JLB]

Do you see it a necessity that Scripture is the foundation of beliefs and practices wihout hermeneutics?

I see it a necessity that Scripture is the foundation of our beliefs and practices with the Holy Spirit.


JLB

 

[JLB]

How can a denomination or CFnet formulate a statement of faith without interpretation? My view is that interpretation is compulsory to differentiate: infant baptism from believers' baptism; Calvinism vs Arminianism; the deity of Christ; different views of the atonement; etc.

By reading what the text of scripture says with the Holy Spirit within us to lead us and guide us into the truth.



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Qz, here is what I said —

What I mean by sola scripture, is scripture only to be the foundation of our beliefs and practices.

Without interpretation??

Does your church support infant or believers' baptism? If so, why?

 

[OzSpen]

By reading what the text of scripture says with the Holy Spirit within us to lead us and guide us into the truth.

JLB

What if reading the text of Scripture with the Holy Spirit's help leads to a different conclusion to yours? Which is the truth?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I didn't state we didn't reason on this forum. Don't we reason with what is written?
I would state God is Spirit means God is Spirit. He is not a carbon based life form is He?
I am not sure why child bearing has any bearing on anyone's salvation. The faith, love and holiness should apply to all.

I think child bearing was a way to keep women out of trouble.
It is part of the natural order of things.
If she had already had children, she wouldn't be out there talking with the serpent.
She'd be home taking care of the kids.
And I'm sure Adam would have said "stay away from my family".