Here is how we would define Sola Scriptura:
The phrase sola scripturais from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings” – referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is ‘God breathed’ (given of inspiration of God) and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness…”
Most people who visit this blog don’t need a history lesson. So since the audience knows the history of the Protestant Reformation I won’t go into much detail.
However, I will say this. Sola Sciptura was a necessary doctrine for the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church had a strong hold on all things called Christian thus the development of Sola Scriptura was timely, relevant and again necessary for its season.
500 years ago there was only 2 churches. The Reformed Church and the Catholic Church both fighting for the right to be called “the true church”. One church felt it was tradition plus scripture the other said it was “sola scriptura” though as we come to find out they also attached just as much tradition to scripture as the Catholic Church. There was third voice however, that was muted by the Reformers called the Anabaptist that had a desire to take Sola Scriptura literally but we know they found out quickly that there was no room at the table for another plate so they were burned at the stake, drowned, imprisoned, had their goods taken all in the name of “orthodoxy”.
So why do I believe this doctrine is irrelevant? Because by practice no one upholds it. It sounds good and I know people like to quote Latin and seem smarter due to the terminology but at the end of the day we fail the test of holding to “sola scriptura”.
Let me give you an example. There are some today who believe that the Gifts of the Spirit (well the Charismatic ones as they call them or Apostolic gifts) have ceased. The same people who say “scripture must have a witness, in order for it to be made a doctrine” have one verse in the whole bible to defend such a position. So what do they supplement as the witness? Ding, Ding, Ding! Tradition! That is absolutely correct “what do they win Bob”. They say “the early church fathers did not talk about these gifts so they died out somewhere in the first century”!
Now for you sola scriptura guys who also hold to a cessasionist view I am bit confused. The bible nowhere says these gifts ceased and we see them in full operation through the end of the book of Acts; however, you say they cease because you don’t see it! That is like saying Pluto don’t exist because no one has landed on it.
Here is another example. Church buildings! For the sola scriptura guys they use double standard interpretive methods. In one voice they say “the bible is the final voice of authority on Christian practice and faith” but then they say “if the bible doesn’t say we can’t do it then there is freedom”. Now let me fall back a little. Nowhere in the bible does it say “you can’t use seeker sensitive methods to get people into church” or “you can’t use seeker sensitive methods because its unbiblical” the problem is you can’t find a verse that says that. The bible is silent. However, I hear “well the bible doesn’t tell us to use such methods”. See where I am going? But back to the church buildings. As much as I can see ALL the gentiles met in homes. The Jews were the only ones to meet in a building setting and as soon as the Jews labled them a cult they had to run to houses also. Where does the bible say “as soon as possible take 20 million dollars and erect musems buildings to meet in”? Nowhere!
So where am I going? Great question. We need to quit saying we believe in “Sola Scriptura” because we don’t. What we believe is Scripture plus my denominations interpretation. Or Scripture plus my seminary’s hermeneutic. Or Scripture plus my private interpretation. Or scripture plus my favorite theologians theological slant! “Why do you say such heretical things Lionel” you may ask! Because we are gravely mistaken at best, and hypocritical at worse. We all come to the bible with our presuppostions (wherever they have come from) and we all interpret the bible through our foggy lens. We need to quite saying we believe in Sola Scriptura.
This doctrine was for a specific group of people (most of who a Baptist would almost call a heretic LOL). It was necessary then but it is relevant now? My answer is a resounding no! One guy feels you should obey the Sabbath. The other believes you will be raptured in some secret meeting, one guy feels we should have a full meal for the Lord’s Supper, the other feels a shot of grape juice and an oyster cracker suffices, one guy feels that the Law should be preached for sanctification others believe (me) that the Law was a covenant document made obsolete by He who fulfills the Law, one person believes in a plurality of elders the other in a Senior pastor (with elders others with deacons). One person believes that we should bless Israel because of their future promises, others like me only acknowledge the “true Israel of God”. One feels women can preach/teach others not so much 
Some feel that infants should be baptized into the covenant others feel disciples only, some feel that the sacraments “imparts grace” others not so much. Some feel that a theological education is necessary for pastoring others not so much. And guess what! They all do it under the banner of “Sola Scriptura”. If you still believe this doctrine to be relevant, reread this post again and tell me how!
Amen Brother.
Some people worship the bible instead of worshipping the Living Word of God our Lord Jesus Christ.
I thought you might enjoy these quotes from The Secret of the Strength:
“The Anabaptists did not lightly regard any of the Scriptures, but the Gospels were for them the doorway to them all. Every understanding of the Scriptures was a mistaken understanding, they believed, if it did not match the example of Christ and his teaching in the Gospels.” p.66
“The Anabaptists had infinitely more than sola scriptura. They had community with Christ. And they were not ‘people of the book.’ They were ‘people of the man.’ The Anabaptists did not read in the Gospels that the Word was made paper and ink. They read that ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…’ Hans Denck wrote: I value the Scriptures above all human treasure, but not as highly as the Word of God which is alive, strong, eternal, and free.” p.72
“The Scriptures are merely the witness of the inner Word of God. A man can well be saved without the preaching or the reading of the Scriptures. (Otherwise, what should happen with those who are deaf or cannot read?) We understand God our Redeemer, not through the lifeless letter, but through the indwelling Christ.” Hermann Nestler p.73
Menno Simons wrote:
“Beware of all innovations and teachings that do not come from the Word of Christ and his apostles… Point to Christ and his Word at all times. Let all those who would introduce anything more that what Christ teaches in his Word be anathema. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11).” p.80
“The Protestant reformers, the Anabaptists believed, got the old and the new covenants of God confused because they did not enter the holy writings through Christ. They tried to climb in some other way, through the “doctrines” of Paul, through the laws of Moses, or through the Old Testament prophets. This made them “thieves and murderers.” It made them take wrong examples from the wrong people, and led them to use the written word in a way that did more harm than good. The Protestant reformers failed, for instance, to follow Christ’s example in loving his enemies because they looked to David’s example of war. They did not follow Christ’s example in economics because they looked to Abraham and Job. They did not understand the kingdom of Christ because they looked to the kingdom of Israel.” p.81
“The holy writings are valuable for those who use them right,” testified one Anabaptist at the Regensburg trials in Bavaria. “But their misuse is the source of all heresy and unbelief. To the scribes and the Pharisees the holy writings were not a guide to Christ, but a hindrance and eventually a punishment.” p.83
But knowing you, you probably have already read this. Grin.
21st Century Anabaptists Unite! Grin.
I will add this book to my list brother! Thanks for commeting (whew I thought you were serious like me not writing LOL)
Its out of print, but you can find it here:
http://www.gw.org/Sos/Sos.pdf
Lionel,
Thank you for this one.
I’m currently finishing up a book project about the New Testament Church and, with your permission, I’d love to include this article of yours in the book.
I’ve already got guest articles by Brant Hansen, Daniel and Heather Cosby and Jules Wilcox, so if you’ll do me the honor (notice how I ask you in public so you can’t say “No”?)…I’d love to add this one to the mix.
Hope your house church is going well, my friend. I still hope to visit you sometime.
Peas,
kg
Kieth,
If you can put a picture of me on the back cover wearing my Michael Phelps Speed-O I would love to! It may help your book sales tremendously.
Take whatever you want Sir! It ain’t mine’s anyway!
Side note: You amaze me with the quantity of posts you put out. I don’t know how you do it.
————-
I am not trying to spam your blog, but have you ever read James White’s “Scripture Alone”? It can be found at:
http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=60_62&products_id=53
————
Here is what the website says about the book:
Scripture Alone – Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy, Authority and Authenticity
by James R. White
A Passionate Introduction to the Sufficiency of the Bible
If God’s Word is to be heard, we who love it must stand in its defense, says James R. White in his introduction to Scripture Alone. With clear teaching in an engaging, accessible style, this book lays a foundation for all Christians who desire a deeper understanding of biblical sufficiency. White presents Scripture as God-breathed in nature, as unparalleled and absolute in authority, and as the church’s infallible rule of faith in straightforward language to help believers apply these doctrines to their lives. In addition he addresses the timely issues of the canon, including textual and historical evidence.
The captivating dialogues used throughout the book help bring into focus the great truths of faith against the backdrop of error. Based on the author’s experience in public debates against leading apologists of varying ideology, they assist readers in discovering how to engage in conversation with those of differing beliefs.
“The Word comes first, and with the Word the Spirit breathes upon my heart so that I believe.” – Martin Luther
Author Information
James R. White is the author of several acclaimed books, including The King James Only Controversy and The Forgotten Trinity. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization, an adjunct professor with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and a professor of apologetics with Columbia Evangelical Seminary. He and his family live in Phoenix.
Reviews:
“Scripture Alone by James R. White had me hooked at the Dedication page. The heart for Christ that is briefly exposed there is more full expressed in the subsequent pages. White states in his Introduction that he is passionate about theology and faith, and that passion is clear throughout the book. The Introduction also contains a helpful clarification of sola scriptura (and sola fide), which is laid out in more detail in Chapter 2; there are several useful historical references as well. Chapter 2 concludes with an assessment of the evangelical church’s view of Scripture and preaching, in theory and in practice.
This is a book that is written for the layman, but I confess to getting a bit bogged down in Chapter 5, a discussion of the canon of Scripture. I am confident that this is a problem that can be easily overcome by a slower, more careful reading on my part. Throughout the book, White employs a dialogue technique that proves helpful in most places, but occasionally gets tedious. Chapter 6 provides a good preview of material that most Christians have not read firsthand in their entirety, but may have had to deal with recently because of the popularity of The Da Vinci Code. Though not primarily a rebuttal to that book, it is helpful. Chapter 7 has an excellent imaginary debate between a Christian and a Mormon about text corruption, as well as a transcript of an actual debate between White and a Muslim that was wonderful. White also addressed one of my pet peeves in ‘The Lord spoke to me, saying…’ However, the ending he portrays with George happily agreeing to consider Joshua’s points has been a rarity in my experience.
In his conclusion, White reiterates his goal, to stir up a passion in the believer for the Word of God and it’s sufficiency. He exhorts the reader to continued study, and to a renewed zeal for meditation on the Scriptures. It would be impossible to read this book and not be so moved.” –Christian Book Previews
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Chapter One: Three Arguments Related to Scriptural Sufficiency
Chapter Two: Definitions: More Than Half the Battle
Chapter Three: Forever Settled: The Nature of God’s Holy Word
Chapter Four: Inerrancy and Exegesis: Believing and Honoring God’s Word
Chapter Five: The Canon of Scripture Considered
Chapter Six: Did Thomas Write a Gospel?
Chapter Seven: Allegations of Corruption
Chapter Eight: Allegations of Contradiction
Chapter Nine: Tradition, the Church, and the Development of Doctrine
Chapter Ten: The Lord Spoke to Me, Saying
Chapter Eleven: Scriptural Sufficiency: Nothing New
Chapter Twelve: Conclusion: Forever Settled in Heaven . . . and for Me
Scripture Index
Hutch and Lionel,
Considering that you both seem to speak so highly of the Anabaptist, do you realize that historically many of them may have believed in the doctrine of the restoration of all things through Christ.
“Christian Universalism experienced a revival in the Protestant Reformation, due to the end of the hegemony of the Roman Catholic Church over Western Christianity. The Anabaptists and the Moravians were two early Protestant groups in which the teaching of universal reconciliation was common.[28][29]”
-wickepedia
Also to be noted is the Luthern Augsburg Confession which points out their disagreement with the Anabaptist teaching of the restoration of all things through Christ (aka-Christian Universalism)
Augsburg Confession
Article XVII: Of Christ’s Return to Judgment.
1) Also they teach (the Luthern Church) that at the Consummation of the World Christ will appear for judgment and will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end.
2) They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.
3) They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.
I am in no way trying to contend with the argument because I don’t have enough background knowledge to do so, but I think the points you raise about sola scriptura is correct. As it relates to our present day, we do not uphold that view.
However, I think I’m a tad bit confused. Are you and Hutch suggesting that the Word does not stand alone and should be accompanied by personal interpretation of the living God?
Hutch,
That’s a bit rough
In fact, like most religious groups who have adhered to a particular position, they had amongst them a small number of those they called “the spiritualists” who held to that erroneous belief.
Is it possible that everything that we were thought was correct theologically was a little of tilt. This insight Lionel proves, intensely that we need to take long hard looks at our hermeneutic
I am reminded of the scripture 1 Cor. 13:12.
Jon,
Using Wickepedia to defend the Anabaptist position on eternal judment is like using a Klu Klux Klansmen to identify 1 criminal out of 10 and one of them is black!
Hey Javetta,
I don’t know about should but I am saying it does and each person uses Sola Scriptura as a basis. In other words the bible wasn’t meant to be read in a vacuum. It was to be interpreted by the recipients. Tradition drives each one of our hermeneutic. That is why some people say you can drink, others don’t. One person says you should tithe, others don’t. Some believe you should only sing the psalms, others there is no restriction, some feel women can’t preach others don’t. Some feel that you preach Christ from the OT others say we are to use a Historical Grammatical. See where I am going sister?
Hmmm…I do see where you’re going. But I also know that those arguments are almost always pushed by those who have something to gain from it–whether it be a group of feminist-loving egalitarians or other groups’ feeble attempts to be holier than the holy of holies.
I think scriptiure validates scripture, and our interpretations should be based on the context. The bible is as much a history book as it is a spiritual book of guidance. Personal belief here–I don’t think scripture is negotiable. I think we have freedom to enjoy the different angles of approach (i.e. literary…which I like to do often as an English major) however, we CANNOT discount the historical perspective (not the church’s historical perspective but the bible’s historical perspective). If we do, we will have no solid foundation upon which to build our faith…each person will be the author of their own faith, bending the scripture to fit his/her own sin and inadequacy (that would be ultimate pride) instead of conforming to the instructions that were God-breathed by God Himself….
Any thoughts?
Very Good Point!
If Scripture Alone is our guide then what verse says “Thus sayeth the Lord Speaketh no more in Tongues nor prophesy no more for thou will on day have the complete canon of scripture and you no longer need these gifts”? Maybe Bubba with the banjo has this version (see my comments on the black reformed dilemma blog) but I have never seen any verse in scripture that comes remotely close to the gifts ceasing.
The argument is usually taken from 1 Corinthians 13. Tongues shall cease and prophesy will come to an end. But so will knowledge so I guess we are a bunch of dopes who know nothing?
When the perfect comes. They say the perfect is the completed canon. But that is just bad exegesis. What did the perfect mean to that audience when Paul wrote it? Surely not a completed canon of scripture. Jesus is the Perfect and when he comes why would I need prophesy, tongues, or knowledge any longer? I will see him face to face. If the Perfect has come already, I ask you a question. Are you perfect? Am I Perfect? Is the Church Perfect? No, Jesus my friend is the Perfect.
Just because people have abused the gifts and act like a bunch of lunatics does not mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater. Much of speaking in tongues and prophesy is really not relevant anyway in church settings because of the lack of teaching and the confusion it causes. Paul had to deal with that. But just because something is misused does not mean we forbid it.
Should we forbid marriage because some abuse the institution of marriage? Neither should we forbid prophesy or speaking in tongues simply because of abuse.
God Bless.
Jon-
I have to hand it to you; you are very persistent at inserting your favorite doctrine into every post and thread. You are never going to convince me that scripture teaches universalism or annihilationism.
Can heretics be found amongst some groups classified as Anabaptist? You better believe it, but for every quote you can find from an Anabaptist supporting your view, I can find ten who fully expected those who are not in Christ (especially those who where burning them, confiscating their property, stealing their children, pushing heated iron rods down their legs and out their ankles, drowning them, hanging them by their genitals etc. all in the name of a so called Reformed Christianity) to suffer eternal conscious torment.
I do like a lot of what the Anabaptists stood for and believed, but not everything the Anabaptists stood for and believed.
Javetta-
I believe that the Bible is the inerrant inspired very Word of God and that it testifies to, is fulfilled and understood in the very person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Interestingly enough the Reformers who championed Sola Scriptura baptized infants in direct contradiction to the scriptures and sanctioned the killing of others in direct contradiction to the Law of Christ.
I am for scripture alone in the sense that we need and dare not add any traditions of men or church dogma to it or we suffer the results.
I also affirm the clear biblical teaching that scripture can be read and searched d through by the unregenerate and that they will not find in the mere reading of the scriptures eternal life John 5:37-40.
On the flip-side, those who are born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit will be led into all truth. John 16:13-15.
So, the conclusion is that scripture cannot be properly understood alone (gasp-did he say that? Take it easy no need to throw and stones) apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ.
Lionel-
I am still recovering from the speedo visual you painted above! My eyes, my eyes!
Javetta,
I agree. But let me ask you two questions.
1. Does Paul mean what he says women should have their heads covered (1 Cor 11) and should remain silent in the church (1 Cor 14).
2. If you answer no, then let me ask you. Should women be allowed to teach (1 Timothy 2)?
Let me know how you come to your conclusion based off of “sola scriptura”.
By the way, this is not to antagonize but to learn more about your perspectives.
Lionel,
I was not defending or rejecting any position held by some of the Anabaptist. I included the wickepedia link (reluctantly) because it at least referenced two (seemingly valid) sources for the statement that it posted. Furthermore, I thought it seemed somewhat credible considering other sources that speak of this too, such as the Luthern Augsburg Confession. I was curious if any of you had come across this in your study on the Anabaptist.
And enough with the Klu Klux Klan analogies! LOL
Jon,
They are the easiest to pick on. I guess I can throw in a few Nation of Islam ones going forward. LOL
Jon, don’t take this literally, but could it be that you are Lionels and Hutch’s “THORN IN THE SIDE”.
Keeping them humble…..joking of course……
Hutch,
I just thought that if there was some validity to this, it seemed somewhat odd that you were so dogmatic in your dialogues with me concerning the subject. I agree with you though, that there may be differences of beliefs on this subject amongst Anabaptist. But I would be careful to call or consider someone a heretic just because they don’t currently or may never agree with me on this subject.
BTW: Still waiting on your commentary on I Corinthians 15:22
SOwen,
I try to challenge their traditional beliefs with ample scripture and commentary. It helps me in my studies and I’m sure it has been a help to others in their studies.
lionelwoods7 wrote:
“Kieth,
If you can put a picture of me on the back cover wearing my Michael Phelps Speed-O I would love to! It may help your book sales tremendously.
Take whatever you want Sir! It ain’t mine’s anyway!”
LOL you are one funny dude!!!!!
Hillarious!!!
Jon,
Heck no it ain’t been a help! We ignore you for the most part, WordPress may be a bit upset that you keep taking up their bandwidth however!
I heard an interesting message about this very thing check it out if you get a chance….
Dr. Robert Smith Jr,
“The Preacher as Exegetical Escort”
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/Audio_Resources/Past_Conferences/Power_in_the_Pulpit.aspx
I think it is interesting that Paul is very emphatic when talking to young Timothy,” Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15 ESV) Paul is very keen about making sure that Timothy handles the word with care. He uses the Greek word ergaten (workman) to show the serious and laboriuos intent of the task at hand.
So as Lionel states,” we use Sola Scriptura as a basis” rather as the standard. Whether you agre or not as mentioned before or before our tradition or denominational views often skew out hermeneutic.
You can look at some of the reformers and see that their hermeneutic was influence by the culture of the time. See Johnathan Edwards who made a defense for slavery.
Lionel,
You stated:
“We ignore you for the most part,”
That’s what typically happens when one is blinded by mens traditions. Jesus is right! The word of God can become of no effect because of mens traditions.
Alright everybody, enough chatter about such trivial things, and let’s move on to what I know is on everyone’s mind…
Does Lionel truly own and wear a Speedo? ? ? ? ? ?
Jon-
I receive no joy from calling those who preach another gospel a heretic, if you prefer I could use false teacher or deceiver those are actually more biblical.
I and many others on this blog have given you ample scriptural evidence that both Christ and the Apostles taught a literal conscious eternal torment for those who die outside of Christ.
1 Corinthians 15 is properly understood in light of the terms “brethren” in verse 1 and “in Christ” in verse 22.
From what I have seen on this blog and the others that I visited but do not comment on, your questions have been answered in depth and your position sufficiently refuted.
What is the point of me answering your position over and over again?
It seems you have made up your mind, but I am still praying that you will come to the truth.
There are a lot of non-essential doctrines but the eternal destiny of the souls of men and women is not a non-essential doctrine
Daniel, Lionel and the speedo should be in a whole seperate post called:
“Solo Speedo and Lionel
The untold story”
Here in lies a prime example of what Lionel has stated in this blog.
Lionel,
If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is irrelevant then what are you then proposing?
I am failing to see how the examples you put forward impugn the definition of the doctrine. Since we all come to Scripture with some type of presuppostions, which I totally agree with you on; it does not remove the fact that Scripture must be the final arbitrator.
If as you state, We need to quit saying we believe in “Sola Scriptura” because we don’t. What is our ground in teaching, etc?
In the end, our hermeneutic must be Jesus Christ. Not our pet theologians, cultural experience, on and on. He said it Himself in Luke 24.
Thanks bro,
Lionel,
I am curious if you are in favor of a return to a more literal “sola scriptura” today or if you literally believe we should throw it out completely?
Personally, I’m all in favor of dispensing with our traditions, but maybe that’s because I feel a sense of confidence that my position is already sustained by “sola scriptura”? Maybe I’m wrong?
Thoughts?
kg
Lionel,
I must apologise to Hutch. My comment ought to have addressed what Jon said.
Brian,
That quote is what I am trying to convey
Jon
I agree being blind is much better! I hate what Jesus taught!
Daniel and Steve,
If you want a sure fire church growth method let me be the greeter in my Speed-o. They call me Hot Chocolate around these parts! My other name is Luscious Lionel.
Hutch,
Since Jon wants to quote verses let him try this one
“15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”
Phillip and Kieth
Sir you bring up a great question. Read the definition again. Though you know it by heart. Both faith and practice is where I am focusing on. Lets start with practice. Lets look at our position on women in the local gathering. Both of us say we get our “practice” from the scripture but they are radically opposed to each other. If we both come saying “sola scriptura” then we then must also admit that one of us are DEAD wrong! Lets look at infant baptism. Me and PCA guy who both cry “Sola Scriptura” in practice have to also admit one of us are dead wrong!
Sola Scriptura was developed in a Vacuum. There are only two churches when this doctrine is developed. The Reformed Church and the Roman Catholic Church. So this mantra was important in developing the Protestant Reformation. The problem today is that the Protestant Reformation isn’t one churh but thousands. And the majority of us have split on the very doctrine that is supposed to be of the Spirit. Which is Sola Scriptura.
Now this verse may strike you as wierd. But I am no longer of the persuasion that the bible is the final rule and authority on faith and practice. I believe it is the nonnegotiable of faith and practice. So if something comes that outrights denies something in the bible it is to be thrown out. But if we say it is the “final” then we are only lying to ourselves. If that be the case then things like plogamy, drinking, gambling, smoking and women pastors wouldn’t even be discussions. Since nothing in the bible outright says these paticular things are sins!
Finally I think the right doctrine today may be inerrancy. But none of us follow Sola Scriptura because if that were the case we would be united front in both faith and practice and we surely are not!
Does sola sriptura mean scripture opnly or that scripture is superior toall sources for the XTIan,Pls check carefully.
Good post anyway.
Tunji,
Let me ask:
1. Does Sola Christus mean Jesus only or Jesus is superior to all other deitys?
2. Does Sola Fide mean faith alone or faith is superior to all other methods.
3. Does Sola Gratia mean grace alone or grace is the most important.
4. Does Sola Deo Gloria mean to God be the glory alone or God gets the primary glory?
Not being sarcastic but if they don’t mean that, I don’t know how scriptura doesn’t mean that.
Lionel-
I don’t feel antagonized by you probing my thoughts. I appreciate that…just be nice (you know I’m a newbie…lol)
As for the topic at hand:
My argument for sola scriptura doesn’t lie in the support of the book itself, apart from any enlightenment from the Holy Spirt or what biblical history tells us. My argument for it lies in the second/third part of the definition as stated above: “ground” or “base.” ALL of our hermeneutics should be based on the scripture…IN ITS CONTEXT.
Did Paul mean what he said? Absolutely. But here’s where the importance of the context comes in. We have to look at the cultural context of the two texts. Anybody who knows anything about the Corinthian church knows they had their fair share of problems. One of those problems, in particular, was the women in the church who were not submitting to the authority of the church. In 1 Cor 11:1-16, we see the word “head” in English, but it has dual meaning in the Greek: “authority,” or “source or origin.” We must take that into consideration–the fact that Christian women are commanded throughout scripture to submit under the authority of man as man submits under the authority of Christ. In that church’s culture, head covering was appropriate symbolism to show respect for authority. That’s what that text was referring to.
In 1 Cor 14:34, we see an extension of the rebuke of the women in the church. Based on the historical context, it is believed that they were to keep silent because they were disruptive and out of order.
In 1 Tim 2:12, we see Paul’s instruction to Tim concerning the church at Ephesus. Again, anybody who knows anything about that church, knows they had a problem with being carried away by false doctrines and gnosticism. Women were extremely vulnerable to being carried away. Grammatically, we must look at the “or.” In this text, it connotes that women shouldn’t over step their boundaries and assume teaching authority over men.
Over and over in the NT, we see Paul refer to women being able to prophecy (which is to teach) and there were even examples of such teaching by women (Anna and Priscilla in Acts)–but they ALWAYS appear within the confines of the authority structure.
So, there you have it–in a big nutshell. Scripture backs scripture (by repeating itself), and corroborates itself with history so as to be studied intellectually and prove itself beyond belief.
Javetta,
Those are good answers! Lets continue the dialouge.
1. So you would admit that none of us practice Sola Scriptura or we have to start saying that someone is very wrong. I think I get what you are saying though.
If I hear you correctly you are saying “all of our faith and practice SHOULD come from the scriptures” I agree. The problem is it doesn’t so again TRADITION plays a huge role in our practice and faith.
So for someone to say “I believe in Sola Scriptura” but yet can reconcile infant and disciples baptism is wrong. Or another example is gifts versus nongifts.
2. In 1 Corinthians Paul is talking about a wife submitting to her husband not a woman submitting to a man. In other words you don’t have to submit to me. Nowhere in the bible are “women” to submit to men. However, a wife is to submit to her husband.
3. Let me show you how well “tradition” and not sola scriptrua brought you to your conclusion. You said “based on the historical context”. Where did you get that context from? The scripture or some commentators conclusion?
4. You said “women” were extremely vulnerable. That would mean that women were more vulnerable than men right? Where do you get that from in the scriptures?
5. Your last paragraph defines inerrancy not Sola Scriptura.
Luscious Lionel or Hot Chocolate LOL!
I need to spend some time in prayer just to get that image of you standing at my church’s front door in speed-o’s.
Good to know that you have a sense of humor. It is a good thing to be able to laugh at yourself and others. Some Reformed people can be a bit stuffy.
God Bless Bro!!!
Lionel-
Ok, I think there was some misunderstandings…let me be clear. I totally agree that we don’t adhere to sola scriptura. Totally agree. However, my stance is that our basis for interpretation should not be “to each his own” but should be in the historical/cultural context of the scripture alone.
I think it’s important for us to respect the historical context of the bible. It’s the most important discipline. Without relying on history, I have no proof that anything other than what I remember actually happened. History has preserved the past and has given us a foundation upon which to build the future. With that said, the people who have historically preserved the records of the cultures, customs, and people of the Good Book, give us a basis from which to interpret.
I am well aware of Paul’s admonition to women in regards to their husbands; however, when we look further into the scriptures that define the order of the church, we clearly see that women must submit to men in authority in the corporate church–those men may not necessarily be their husbands. No, I do not have to submit to you–unless you took the position of authority as a leader in my church. And for that matter, anyone in the church would have to submit to your authority–unless you promoted something sinful.
The fact that women were more vulnerable comes from the historical context. In the same way we respect history in the disciplines of medicine, law, psychology, etc., we should also respect it when it comes to the scriptures. History doesn’t live in a vacuum. And tradition has nothing to do with me coming to that conclusion.
I am not fighting for the “comeback” of the doctrine sola scriptura. I’m fighting for the “comeback” of proper interpretation of the scriptures, in its historical context, so as not to be “carried away by every wind and doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). You feel me?
Lionel
You say you don’t mean to be sarcastic buy then go on to be sarcastic.
Perhaps those like Lionel who have all the answers will have some patience with those of us who don’t.
I thought the whole point of a public discussion forum as this is that all participants learn.grow in Xrist.humbly.
Tunji,
I wasn’t being saracastic. I am conveying how I came to that conclusion. Since the others means X the last must by consistency mean X. I told you I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. But since this is electronic dialogue tone and facial expression is lost.
By the way,
I don’t have all the answers just most. Sproul and MacArthur call me when they have a tough time with the text.
Steve,
you said some reformed people can be a bit stuffy.
What do you think Lionel would be if he actually dawned that speedo?
It would be more than Hot Chocolate….LOL!!!! It would be more like spilled Hot Chocolate.
Steven O
Hutch,
You stated:
“1 Corinthians 15 is properly understood in light of the terms “brethren” in verse 1 and “in Christ” in verse 22.
From what I have seen on this blog and the others that I visited but do not comment on, your questions have been answered in depth and your position sufficiently refuted.”
For in in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. To this you change the wording of the scripture to read “all in Christ will be made alive” to uphold your theology. Is not the all who die (spiritually) in Adam not the same (based on the context of this verse) as the all who need to be made alive in Christ? And because this was written to the “brethren” that makes everything written applicable only to them? Is this what you mean by answering my questions in depth and sufficiently refuting my points?
As a matter of fact, you are the first person who has even given any attempt to comment on this apparent scripture contradiction with your view after I have asked (on this blog as well as Melvin’s). Most people, including yourself, will ask me a bunch of questions to make my view sound silly. After I provide an adequate rebuttal and ask questions in return, most of you seem to want to end the conversion and call me a heretic and false teacher who has been deceived by Satan and in need of salvaion. Many of you avoid any indepth dialogue regarding this topic.
Jon,
I would ask that you read Isaiah 66:22-24
In that scripture it has two references to “all”. In vs. 23 says that “all” flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the Lord.
Then in vs. 24 And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to “all” flesh.”
So does that contridict itself? If all flesh shall come to worship, but then it talks about they (bodies) of the dead men being an abhorrence to all.
Humm! Sounds like that according to this all will not be saved. Because those who are will be looking at the others who weren’t. Correct?
Steven
Jon-
Your novel interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 does not negate the clear teaching of Christ and the Apostles that those who die outside of Christ will suffer eternal conscious torment. Rev. 20:11-15, Matt. 25:31-46, Mark 9:43, Mark 9:48, Luke 16:22-24, Rev 14:9-11, Rev. 20:10,
Romans 9:19-23-you issue is not with me and Lionel, your argument is with God, “O man who answers back to God” you wish to question why the Creator does what He will.
What is the point of asking us to continue to dialogue over and over again about your viewpoint?
Are you going to comment once again about how you redefine and change the meaning of what God’s Word clearly teaches on this subject?
Its not that I cannot keep debating with you, it is just that I am not motivated to debate with you, from now on whenever you post a comment; I will just post a warning to others so they will not be influenced by your errors.
WARNING: Jon Paden, teaches that nobody will exist forever separated from God in a state of literal conscious torment in clear contradiction to the clear teachings of Christ and His Word.
SOwen,
I can see how you could come to this conclustion. However, we must be careful in how we deal with scriptures filled with such metaphoric rhetoric.
Take this scripture for example:
“But if you will not hearken unto Me … then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not he quenched” (Jer. 17:27).
Did not God say this fire “shall NOT BE QUENCHED?”
This prophecy was fulfilled and the fire did occur a few years later and it did destroy all the houses of Jerusalem (Jer. 52:13).
Since God said no person or thing would “quench” this fire, did that mean that it would burn for ever?
Since it accomplished the work it was sent to do, and since it is NOT BURNING TODAY, it obviously went out by itself after accomplishing its purpose!
Unquenchable fire is not eternal fire – it is simply fire that cannot be put out until it has consumed or changed everything it is possible for it to change! It then simply goes out, for there is nothing more to burn. This also seems to be the reason Jesus used ghenna’s fire figuratively to describe God’s fire of judgment. The ghenna fire was a sort of perpetual fire that was used to destroy waste outside of Jerusalem. Just like God’s fire destroys/consumes all carnality/sin (waste).
In the coming age of judgment there will be those who will be in condemnation and will be an abhorrance to all others. But this condemnation/judgment always ultimately brings one to repentance.
Lionel
Thanks for the clarification.I can be a bit prickly at times,especially when I post while on the move!
God bless.
WARNING: Jon Paden, teaches that nobody will exist forever separated from God in a state of literal conscious torment in clear contradiction to the teachings of Christ and His Word.
AMEN HUTCH!!!!!
SOwen and Hutch,
Do you believe that God has two opposing wills?
Jon,
As Hutch does the biblical stance of warning about false teachers.
I will be using the words of Paul:
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
1Corinthians 1:18-19
I will also take the stance of not answering your questions!
I will continue to show you love as we are to love our neighbors.
Amen!
SOwen,
Likewise, I will continue to show you love as we are to love our neighbors.
A lot of stuff in the comments here, so I don’t know if I’m repeating any of it.
I would accept sola scriptura with any high view of scripture as fundamental to a solid Christian apologetic whether we agree on the conclusions we derive or not. The gospel is yet sure in it even if we wrestle with the nonessentials. As such, the gospel is made more sure with a refined hermeneutic. The important thing is the revelation of Christ to the glory of God. It is those who deny sola scriptura that undermine the reason for trusting God’s revelation.
The difference is when tradition disagrees with the essentials of the gospel. Such creates an untenable hermeneutic and Paul warns against those who preach a different gospel.
Aussiejohn you stated:
“In fact, like most religious groups who have adhered to a particular position, they had amongst them a small number of those they called “the spiritualists” who held to that erroneous belief.”
Hutch you stated:
“Can heretics be found amongst some groups classified as Anabaptist? You better believe it, but for every quote you can find from an Anabaptist supporting your view, I can find ten who fully expected those who are not in Christ (especially those who where burning them, confiscating their property, stealing their children, pushing heated iron rods down their legs and out their ankles, drowning them, hanging them by their genitals etc. all in the name of a so called Reformed Christianity) to suffer eternal conscious torment.”
It would seem that this was a common if not a majority view with the early Anabaptist considering the fact that this is particularly attributed to them and mentioned in the Lutheren Augsburg Confession. I doubt it would have been worth mentioning in such an important official document if it was only just a few who believed in it.
Jon-
My wife says I am slow but trainable so maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.
1. Are you saying the Lutheran Augsburg Confession is an Anabaptist confession of faith?
Because it is not, it is a Lutheran Confession of Faith and Luther was a notorious mass murderer of Anabaptists.
2. Are you saying that the LAC supports universalism?
Because it does not:
XVII. Concerning the Return of Christ to Judgment — a standard statement about the End Times, which states that Jesus will judge the living and the dead, the elect will go to heaven and the “ungodly” will go to Hell. Condemned are Universalism and the belief that the elect will have a secular government.
What is your point in referencing the LAC?
Hutch,
It would seem that the reconcilation of all through Christ was a common if not a majority view with the early Anabaptist considering the fact that this is particularly attributed to them in the Lutheren Augsburg Confession. I doubt it would have been worth mentioning in such an important official Lutheran document if it was only just a few Anabaptist who believed in it.
Jon-
Using a Lutheran Confession of Faith to describe what most Anabaptists taught and practiced is like using a skinhead to accurately describe the holocaust.
LOL@ Hutch!!!!!!!
By the way that will be 19.99 or I will violate Corinthians and charge you for copyright infringement!
You guys are killing me over here………….
Someone is seriously grabbing at straws! No wonder he tries to turn every post into a discussion on universalism!
I would tend to agree with the general idea of this post. I think that what has happened is not so much that “Sola Scriptura” has been made irrelevant, but that we have forgotten what it is supposed to mean. In the Protestant Reformation, it was very true that Sola Scriptura was meant to stand as a bulwark against mere tradition forming doctrine… but it was also a reaction to the doctrine of the Infalibility of the Pope. So what is Sola Scriptura supposed to mean?
We cannot safely remove the Bible from its place as the final authority on doctrine, so it is obvious that Sola Scriptura still needs to have some bearing. However, the redefinition of it needs to include the idea of Scripture in its proper context. IE, what was the author trying to communicate to his specific audience when he said “XYZ”? If that is what we mean by Sola Scriptura, we will understand what the Bible is actually saying, giving us a firm foundation into which we can apply said teachings to everyday life. If what we mean by Sola Scriptura is that I can pull any verse out of its place to answer any given problem, then you are quite correct that it is irrelevant.