1. 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!

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Uncertaindrummer, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Feathers in Hair

    Feathers in Hair World's Tallest Hobbit

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    14,599
    Ratings:
    +1,793
    +++Mod Post+++

    While this can be a heated topic, please remember that the forum rules still apply. Personal attacks are not welcome. Thanks for keeping this in mind in the future!

    ++++++++++++++
     
  2. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    That's just as logically inconsistent as affirming sola scriptura itself.
     
  3. !Fluffy!

    !Fluffy! Lacking Common Sense

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,215
    Ratings:
    +331
    My dear brother in Christ:

    Thank you for your keen interest in my position on the doctrine of sola scriptura. However, I assure you my apathy in this regard is as real as the keyboard beneath my hands. I am as unconcerned about it as I am about Arminianism vs Calvinism.

    Athanasius, I am much more interested in you than in this topic. Were you always a Catholic? What brought you to RF?
     
  4. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,963
    Ratings:
    +5,500
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Not at all. Many Protestant Christians don't espouse sola scriptura today. many Christians place authority in the scriptures, but they also place authority in some part of the Tradition. The RC's have their own line of Apostolic Succession. So do the Orthodox. So do the Episcopalians, which, in concept, if not in essence, are Protestant. Other Protestant organizations espouse their own claim to Church authority in some sense or other. I have to answer to those in authority in my denomination, be it specifically "Apostolic" or not. The Bible is not the only authority I must answer to. I must also answer to the spiritual authority of Christ as it is mediated through my denomination.

    Just because the sola scriptura eschewing papal authority was the formational paradigm behind Protestantism, it does not follow that the sola scriptura of today, espoused by so many Biblical fundamentalists that pepper modern Protestantism, is a universal paradigm that either universally identifies or drives the motives of all Protestants. It is not. Protestant denominations are likely to promote their own perspectives of Biblical teaching as part of the "Tradition," just as RC's and OC's do. Some Protestant groups even espouse the teathings of other branches of the "Tradtition," without necessarily embracing the specific authority of those other branches. They are also likely to recognize that the authority of Jesus is mediated through their own denomination, just as it is mediated through other branches of Xy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. doppelganger

    doppelganger Through the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,850
    Ratings:
    +2,336
    And what a question it is! While I give no deference either to the "authority" of scripture or tradition, I personally think the RCC has the better side of this at least because it has a certain consistency.

    If the Protestants wanted to break with the authority of tradition as to some matters, it makes one wonder why other matters that are only held on the authority of tradition should not also be questioned, such as the Nicene Creed, the "Canonical" acceptance of most of the NT and exclusion of other Christian writings, literal belief in certain of the fables about early Christianity, and the whole vacuous "right-thinking" approach to Christianity.
     
  6. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Too bad I'm drinking coffee.
     
  7. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,963
    Ratings:
    +5,500
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    :drool:

    Mmmmm........Coffee!

    [edit]
    I'd espouse sola coffee, but I enjoy beer and pizza too much...
     
  8. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Lately I've been drinking like a UU.:eek:
     
  9. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,963
    Ratings:
    +5,500
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    "Where three or four are gathered, there's always a fifth." -- Unofficial Episcopalian statement of fellowship
     
  10. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    I was going to say that I drink like a UU in the morning and an Episcopalian at night. I'm usually in a general state of confusion in the afternoon hours.
     
  11. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,963
    Ratings:
    +5,500
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Bacon and eggs, Astaire and Rogers, Abbot and Costello, steak and 'taters, hugs and kisses, caffeine and alcohol.
     
  12. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    sex and cigarettes
     
  13. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,963
    Ratings:
    +5,500
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Always preferred "Luckies"...or "More"...
     
  14. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,864
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I actually agree with this. Albeit, Protestants I have spoken with most always push for biblical authority. As if I didn't agree with them on that matter. :rolleyes:

    I have yet to bump into a Christian that doesn't consider the Bible authoritative. In fact, I was often the one pointing out to them that they believed in tradition themselves. They saw it otherwise. They treated the word "Tradition" as almost a curse word. It was to Romish to them, who knows...:shrug:

    On other hand, the topic of authority is a peculiar one to say the least. Just like the Apostles, didn't self-appoint themselves, so to, men today can't either. So there either is a real authority or there isn't. If there is, how do you and I know?

    This is real shaky ground for Proties in my opinion.
     
  15. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,869
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Actually, it's bourbon in the morning and Earl Grey at night. The state of confusion comes from lack of sleep, or not enough bourbon.
     
  16. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Very well said.
     
  17. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    It is clear to me you have no answer to my questions.
    clear 2 me, dear A, i both did (post 170) 'd do

    Obviously you cannot find one verse in scripture that teaches sola scriptura.
    Az mentioned in 170, dear Athanasius, the original use of your phrase 'sola scriptura' duz not mean what you apparently say it means. Instead it means, in regard to written documents: Scripture's primary in Christian teaching. Another way of saying that, mr A, is that the apostles' and the Lord's teaching's primary. For instance, over your or your tradition's teaching. At least it is to me and to anyone i'd teach

    ...in order for you to say that scripture alone is the sole is the sole infallible source for all Christian docrtine...
    That's what i meant by my word 'strawman' in post 170, in reference to your argument and questions, mr A. I, for one, never said 'Alone.' If you remember: You did. Secondly, in regard to Martin Luther and others who returned to the teaching of the apostles, and sensical and proper interpretation of it, in many matters: they also did not mean 'Alone' in the sense that you or your strawman does. They also meant: Primary, Ultimate, and in that sense: Complete. 3rdly, given that Scripture's God-breathed, you're correct about Infallible. Last: Even as the ultimate written authority, Scripture's not the ultimate 'source.' Since God, God's and Christ's Spirit, and Christ Jesus GodMan, is His Scripture's source

    How do you know that the nt canon isfrom matthew-revelation?
    By reading it

    The earliest Christians had no clue...until 382.
    That's az silly az when you stated it the 1st time.
    Peter, the apostle, for instance, in 2 P 3:15-16, recognized Paul's letters as Scripture
     
  18. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Writer, if what you mean is simply Prima scriptura and not sola scriptura, then Catholics(Such as Catholic theologian Dr Scott Hahn) as well as the Fathers of the Church would agree with you. Scripture has a certain primacy but not a sole sufficiency, the Fathers such as Athanasius I quoted earlier knew this and made us of the word of God in Apostolic Tradition and the Catholic Magisteruim too. But Primary doesn't mean ultimate. It would take the Catholic Church and her apostolic tradition and authority to know what the scripture was to begin with. The Fathers of the church believed in the "Material suffciency" of scripture. Catholics also believe this. This means that scripture itself contains all that is needed to do proper theology and bring someone to Christ and his truth. However it is not Soley suffcient, becuase although it contains all the info, it(Scripture) itself is not always clear as to what it means(2 Peter 3:15-16). We need a authoritative interpeter, perhaps someone who has had first hand expierience in being taught by a apostle to teach us the proper meaning(Acts 8:30-31). That interpeter has always been the church who can speak for Christ with his authority(Luke 10:16, Matt 16:18, Matt 18:15-20) etc. Hence this is the definition of the Magisteruim, or teaching authority. Tradition or oral teaching of the apostles not written that is handed down to us is also seen as the word of God(1 thess 2:13) that each of us is to hold on to(2 thess 2:15) as well as the written word. So that both Scripture and tradition make up one deposit of faith that Christ and the apostles left us and we are to hold on to. The role of tradition is to act as a interpretive grid to the scriptures. And the role of the Magisteruim is to guide the proper understanding of both scripture and tradition as we see in the life of the early Christians centuries 1-8. Writer, My dear sir, you say you know that the canon of the new testament is made up of all the books you have have in yours. No offense, but just becuase you read something doesn't mean you know its inspired. All religions(Such as Mormans or Muslims) read thier holy books and believe them to be inspired too. But I don't think you would agree that their books are inspired do you? I really think you need to Study Early church history and the canon becuase its just a histrorical fact that the early christians were not always exaclty sure what constituted the new testament or not. Early Christians accepted some of the biblical books like the gospels but rejected others. Some writings that the early christians thought were scripture you do not have in your bible, such as the epsistle of Clement or the Shepherd of Hermas. In many circles these books were read in public worship in the first 2 centuries of the church and yet your bible doesn't have them. I listed the murtorian canon which was a canon that the early christians had and believed around the year 180-190 AD. It contained a writing called the Apocylypse of Peter. Its also denied the inspiration of James, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 2 Peter and Revelation. I believe these books are currently in your bible. They didn't know these books were scripture, yet you do. So how do you know what is the inspired books of the new testament? How come they didn't? The answer is simple. The New testmant canon wasn't closed until 382 AD at the counciul of Rome under Pope Damasus I, then ratified again in the Catholic councils of Hippo(393) and Carthage(397). Up until then the early christians were not completely sure which books were inspired and which were not. In other words it took Romes Papal and magisterial authority and tradition to give us the new testament canon which every christian goes by today. By accepting this canon of the new teststament you deny sola scriptura becuase you had to use the Catholic church as your primary and Ultimate source to arrive at what the bible was to begin with. I know this is hard to take but history shows it. This is why we have so many converts coming into the Catholic church from protestantism. thousands of them are former protestant ministers who have studied history and realize this is true. I hope that helps
     
  19. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    Writer, if what you mean is simply Prima scriptura and not sola scriptura, then Catholics(Such as Catholic theologian Dr Scott Hahn) as well as the Fathers of the Church would agree with you.
    What "sola scriptura" originally, and always, meant by those who used that term in a positive sense is: "prima scriptura"

    Scripture has a certain primacy but not a sole sufficiency, the Fathers such as Athanasius I quoted earlier knew this and made us of the word of God in Apostolic Tradition and the Catholic Magisteruim too.
    If this statement of yours is meant to say that Scripture's incomplete as a written revelation of the apostles, then it's an inaccurate statment. 2ndly, the apostles' writings and teachings ARE their tradition, and neither exclude nor differ from their tradition. To quote u: "scripture itself contains all that is needed to do proper theology and bring someone to Christ and his truth." 3rdly: the phrase "Catholic Magisterium," I suspect, and fear, is and has been often simply a device to serve to attempt to deviate from, contradict, or justify deviation and contradiction from the apostles' pattern and teaching contained in their writings. No offence

    But Primary doesn't mean ultimate. It would take the Catholic Church and her apostolic tradition and authority to know what the scripture was to begin with.
    To contrary: "Primacy" in this context = ultimate written authority. If your 2nd sentence is stating that the apostle-writers of the NT were members of Christ's Body, His church; and that they wrote to the churches; and that the churches and fellow-members (eg: Galatians, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Laodicea, Thessalonica, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, etc) received and benefitted from their writings; all starting in the 1st century after Christ rose from the dead: of course that's true

    We need a authoritative interpeter, perhaps someone who has had first hand expierience in being taught by a apostle to teach us the proper meaning(Acts 8:30-31).
    Since Scripture IS 'taught by apostles and teaches the proper meaning' (2 Tim 3:16); and's even bread for man, including GodMan, to live by (Mt 4:4); and is written straightforwardly, honestly, humbly, reachably, readably, and nontechnically; "prima scriptura aka sola scriptura" is, in the 1st place, it's own best teacher, interpreter, and authoritative interpreter

    Tradition or oral teaching of the apostles not written that is handed down to us is also seen as the word of God(1 thess 2:13) that each of us is to hold on to(2 thess 2:15) as well as the written word.
    1stly: I hope your reference to 2:13 isn't meant to suggest that the apostles spoke different from what they wrote, or that their writings (the NT) lacks or excludes anything significant they also spoke. 2ndly: 2:15 does not in the least suggest this. Especially since it comprises specifically only 2 smaller letters in the New Testament: those to the Thessalonians.
    Lastly, if you disagree with me: then please feel more than free, by all means, to specify any, or one, or as many "Traditions" which you feel are apostolic and not in the Bible. And, if you're willing, we can compare them here and now with what the apostles and Lord actually taught per Scripture. That way we can see if there's any authority or validity to whatever traditions or examples you may have in mind (if indeed you have any in mind). Gracias

    just becuase you read something doesn't mean you know its inspired.
    To the contrary: the Spirit within one's regenerated spirit knows the Spirit in others' spirit

    I don't think you would agree that [Koran and Book of Momon] are inspired do you?
    Do u? Perhaps inspired by Satan, though I don't think they show that level of intelligence

    I really think you need to Study Early church history and the canon becuase its just a histrorical fact that the early christians were not always exaclty sure what constituted the new testament or not.
    Thanx for your kind remark, cuz interestingly enough, that's sum o' my same advice to u. Although I'd recommend reading or studying the apostles' writings, themselves, 1st. Or primarily. Because they're the apostles' writings. And earliest church history. Whether Scripture's Scripture doesn't depend on the reader, dear Mr A. It depends on its writer

    how do you know what is the inspired books of the new testament?
    Like I said, I can read. I can also differentiate between religious, false, and/or superstitious garbage or mixture (eg Koran, Book of Mormon, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Thomas); and God-breathed Scripture (2 P 3:15-16; 2 Tim 3:15-16; Jn 6:68; etc)

    The New testmant canon wasn't closed until 382 AD at the counciul of Rome under Pope Damasus I, then ratified again in the Catholic councils of Hippo(393) and Carthage(397).
    To contrary: as a fitting conclusion to the apostles' writings and the New Testament, the apostle John, in his conclusion to Revelation, wrote Rv 22:18-19. Paul also wrote Col 1:25. And Peter very properly recommended Paul's letters. The New Testament Scripture was completed around 100 AD. Not 300 years later. Nor 1900 years later. Regardless of how many Christians, you, and/or others may like, dislike, or not comprehend any or certain portions of it. Scripture's creation and inspiration doesn't depend on readers in the first place. It depends on its writer(s).
    Hope that helps A
     
  20. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,541
    Ratings:
    +6,180
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Why wasn't it closed until 382 A.D.? Why not immediately after the last of the writings was completed? What was the Church waiting for? And how did they come to the decision to close it when they did?
     
Loading...