Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

[Traditionalist]

The three-legged stool makes no sense when Rome infallibly defines doctrines.

Says you, but so far you've shown an utter incapability of making sense or coherent logical points thus far in these discussions. Having the Church hold a view of Material Suffiency, where every Tradition is found in the Scripture (albeit in an implicit sense) makes perfect sense. And putting the Tradition, Scripture, & Church authority on equal grounds (all final, all the Word of God) is logically coherent.

There doesn't have to be an "agreed upon" canon by a church for the people of God to know what the Word of God is.

What? Huh? Your post (in your worldview) would literally translate like this: There doesn't have to be a Bible for people to know what the Bible is.." If the Bible, as you arbitrarily define it, is the final authority in your worldview, then how do you get the Bible? What is the infallible means of coming up with a canon? Again, it's just this vague wishy-washy explanation. If the canon of the bible is externally compiled then how do you infallibly know what the Bible is while adhering to Sola Scriptura? How does that work while still being logically coherent? So far I've received zero explanation and a lot of just off-the-wall statements about early christians not needing the Bible to have the Bible, basically. (Which is in violation of Leibniz's law of identity by the way)

The church does not define the canon. It merely discovers it, and yes, that did not have to happen in the first century.

Where is your infallible, biblically-backed source for saying ti didn't happen in the first century but has to happen by the 21st century? Your criterias and methodology is completely arbitrary. Also you're playing a game of semantics, the issue here is that the Church infallibly affirmed the canon of scripture through Divine revelation, i.e. an extrabiblical, external Spirit-led decision from God lead the Church to define the 27 books of the NT as we now know them, and also the OT while we're at it. You're being vague and saying the "church" (Whatever that is in your view) just happens to walk around one day and "discover" the Bible (what you mean by Bible I'm still unaware, are you talking about the Ethiopian Orthodox bible?) and you somehow infallibly know what the Bible is. That doesn't work, using your own criteria:

Do you believe the Trinity because the Bible teaches it? Or do you believe it because patristic sources have defined it?

Let me rephrase this for you:

Do you believe the Biblical Canon because the Bible defines it? Or do you believe it because your Church "discovered" it?

 

[Sola_Fide]

2nd Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Do you think it is a good work to pray to Mary? Do you think it is a good work to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed? Do you think it is a good work to believe and teach that the pope is infallible?

Of course you do. But the Scriptures no where teach these things. So how can the man of God be thoroughly equipped for these tasks if the Bible doesn't equip Him? Paul said that the Scriptures themselves were sufficient to equip a man for EVERY good work.

 

[TER]

uh, I don't think so... I do know that Paul wrote 13 of the 27 chapters of the NT (KJV) the one that you referenced was one he wrote to a church while in jail...right?

I think the reformation had something to do with the "protestants" arguing with the Pope over who can, and who cannot talk with God.

there seems to be a lot of blending going on. are "Christians" and "Catholics" one and the same?
I am not trying to argue ANY point. I am literally just trying to understand the basics.
it seems the more that I learn and absorb, the more complicated and confusing it gets.
peace.

If you are truly interested, I would recommend you reading the classic text "A History of the Christian Church' by Walker. It is an excellent primer into the history of Christianity.

 

[Sola_Fide]

What? Huh? Your post (in your worldview) would literally translate like this: There doesn't have to be a Bible for people to know what the Bible is.." If the Bible, as you arbitrarily define it, is the final authority in your worldview, then how do you get the Bible? What is the infallible means of coming up with a canon? Again, it's just this vague wishy-washy explanation. If the canon of the bible is externally compiled then how do you infallibly know what the Bible is while adhering to Sola Scriptura? How does that work while still being logically coherent? So far I've received zero explanation and a lot of just off-the-wall statements about early christians not needing the Bible to have the Bible, basically. (Which is in violation of Leibniz's law of identity by the way)



Where is your infallible, biblically-backed source for saying ti didn't happen in the first century but has to happen by the 21st century? Your criterias and methodology is completely arbitrary. Also you're playing a game of semantics, the issue here is that the Church infallibly affirmed the canon of scripture through Divine revelation, i.e. an extrabiblical, external Spirit-led decision from God lead the Church to define the 27 books of the NT as we now know them, and also the OT while we're at it. You're being vague and saying the "church" (Whatever that is in your view) just happens to walk around one day and "discover" the Bible (what you mean by Bible I'm still unaware, are you talking about the Ethiopian Orthodox bible?) and you somehow infallibly know what the Bible is. That doesn't work, using your own criteria:

Great questions. If your position is that a church must infallibly define what books are in the canon, how do you prove that your church is an infallible authority to begin with? There are other churches that infallibly define a canon and who declare that they are the true church, such as the Mormons.

So your questions are easily turned back on themselves and your utter circular "final authority".

 

[fisharmor]

Paul said that the Scriptures themselves were sufficient to equip a man for EVERY good work.

When Paul wrote these things about Scripture, was he talking about the Gospel of John? Or Revelation? If so, how was it he could be referring to a book that was to be written at least 20 years after he died?
If Paul was referring to books that didn't yet exist, then doesn't that tear Sola Scriptura asunder?

It could just also be that he was referring to what he considered Scripture... namely the OT.

 

[Sola_Fide]

When Paul wrote these things about Scripture, was he talking about the Gospel of John? Or Revelation? If so, how was it he could be referring to a book that was to be written at least 20 years after he died?
If Paul was referring to books that didn't yet exist, then doesn't that tear Sola Scriptura asunder?

It could just also be that he was referring to what he considered Scripture... namely the OT.

Good question. No, it doesn't. Because the Spirit of God was working in the very early church in a special way to make sure that Christians of all ages would have the very words of God in written form. The New Testament itself says it is Scripture (or at least Peter said that about Paul's epistles).

 

[fisharmor]

If your position is that a church must infallibly define what books are in the canon, how do you prove that your church is an infallible authority to begin with?

You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative. We do not.
The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.

I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self. That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.

I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.

I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists. That part I don't get. If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?

 

[Christian Liberty]

You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative. We do not.
The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.

I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self. That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.

I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.

I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists. That part I don't get. If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?

Or our views on families?

 

[fisharmor]

Or our views on families?

Um.... elaborate?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative. We do not.
The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.

I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self. That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.

I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.

I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists. That part I don't get. If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.

I see what you did there.

Sorry I can't +rep ya ATM, brother. ~hugs~

 

[Christian Liberty]

Um.... elaborate?

Should the family also be abolished as an institution?

 

[fisharmor]

Should the family also be abolished as an institution?

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then why not?
If we all have the inherent ability to decide for ourselves what Scripture is and what it means, then what reason do we have to have families?

 

[Sola_Fide]

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then why not?
If we all have the inherent ability to decide for ourselves what Scripture is and what it means, then what reason do we have to have families?

The position of Sola Scriptura does not mean that we all decide for ourselves what the Bible means. It says that the Bible is the final authority for all interpretations.

I see you making application to political theory, and if there is anything more abhorrent to freedom it is that a central authority (Rome) infallibly defines belief. Thomas Paine said "Monarchy is the Popery of government". The Reformed Christians in America constantly argued against the centralization of Rome and they tied it to their arguments for the decentralization of government as well.

 

[fisharmor]

The position of Sola Scriptura does not mean that we all decide for ourselves what the Bible means.

It's not what it says, but that is absolutely what it means.
If that's not what it actually means in practice then there is only one flavor of Protestant, because if people aren't deciding for themselves what it means, then there is only one possible meaning.

Which of Gene Robinson's one-size-fits-all protestant doctrines is your favorite?

It says that the Bible is the final authority for all interpretations.

So are you appealing to the Lutheran tradition of letting Scripture interpret Scripture?
Because that is, in fact, a tradition... and a new one.

I see you making application to political theory, and if there is anything more abhorrent to freedom it is that a central authority (Rome) infallibly defines belief.

Well, with Ed apparently banned (what happened there? missed it) I'm not sure what's going on with this statement. You seem to be shadowboxing.

I see you making application to political theory, and if there is anything more abhorrent to freedom it is that a central authority (Rome) infallibly defines belief. Thomas Paine said "Monarchy is the Popery of government". The Reformed Christians in America constantly argued against the centralization of Rome and they tied it to their arguments for the decentralization of government as well.

And I'll keep pointing out this apparently unknown tidbit about the formation of the US: Thomas Paine was, like so many other revolutionaries, a confirmed deist and critic of Christianity in general, not Rome in particular.

If you want to find out what the actual American reformed Christian position is on the state, you need look no farther than FF: someone had an abortion? KILL HER. Doesn't matter what the implications of that are WRT the state, she needs to die.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If you want to find out what the actual American reformed Christian position is on the state, you need look no farther than FF: someone had an abortion? KILL HER. Doesn't matter what the implications of that are WRT the state, she needs to die.​

"had an abortion" is a phrase that simply shouldn't be used. She murdered her child. That is better terminology.

I know that Reformers had a number of different views on the State, so I can't speak for all of them.

Murder should be punished by death. This is a Noahide law in Genesis 9:6 and reaffirmed in Romans 13:4.

I'm not sure what "implications for the State" this really has except perhaps that it should execute murderers. If you want to entirely replace the State with private companies that's one thing, but I'm not sure what this has to do with this. If the State insists on monopolizing government services, it should do its job and punish people for murder, should it not?

I deal with each issue individually at this point. Yeah, there are a lot of things the State should have no role in, but I'm not really sure what this has to do with this situation.

I happen to think anarcho-capitalism has a weaker Biblical foundation than I did in the past, as for one thing I am unaware of a single Bible verse that strongly implies it. I can see how you can argue for pacifism from the Bible, but most ancap arguments I've seen are basically just pacifistic hermaneutics that aren't actually taken consistently enough, which leads to problems. I think from a Bible standpoint we sort of have to pick a side. Either we support minimal government as God's agent of wrath against the evildoer, or we take the pacifist position and say that violence and justice are something that should be delegated only to God himself, and that Christians should not participate in them. But, I don't think you can really have it both ways, from a Bible standpoint.

Oh, and Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy leads to a viewpoint that is far more statist than what I'm advocating now. The Catholic/EO has to deal not only with Romans 13, but also with church precedent that supports the State and an authority structure which is consistent with Big Government.

I think you are sort of framing this debate wrong, and the goalposts need to be moved a little. You're suggesting that a massive church structure like the EO church is necessary even to justify the existence of families, and thus you find it absurd that a Reformed Baptist such as myself would support a minimal state. I think there's a much better parallel to be made between small churches and small states as compared to big churches with big states. But, a viewpoint that denies any governmental authority at all (or family authority) would logically have to be an ultra-low church position. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy couldn't be more incompatible with it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The position of Sola Scriptura does not mean that we all decide for ourselves what the Bible means. It says that the Bible is the final authority for all interpretations.

I see you making application to political theory, and if there is anything more abhorrent to freedom it is that a central authority (Rome) infallibly defines belief. Thomas Paine said "Monarchy is the Popery of government". The Reformed Christians in America constantly argued against the centralization of Rome and they tied it to their arguments for the decentralization of government as well.

I agree. I believe that both State and church authority are supposed to be limited. I used to believe, as you do, that State authority doesn't exist at all, but I couldn't honestly defend that view from the Bible. Even still, the Reformed tradition is MUCH more consistent with a view like this than Catholicism. If anything dispensationalism would be more consistent with ancap because then you can basically throw out the Old Testament (But then, you can pretty much defend anything you want at that point). But, Catholicism just leads to ultra-statism, IMO. If the church has that much authority, its hard to argue that the State shouldn't as well, doubly so when the church is saying that the State should have that authority.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree. I believe that both State and church authority are supposed to be limited. I used to believe, as you do, that State authority doesn't exist at all, but I couldn't honestly defend that view from the Bible. Even still, the Reformed tradition is MUCH more consistent with a view like this than Catholicism. If anything dispensationalism would be more consistent with ancap because then you can basically throw out the Old Testament (But then, you can pretty much defend anything you want at that point). But, Catholicism just leads to ultra-statism, IMO. If the church has that much authority, its hard to argue that the State shouldn't as well, doubly so when the church is saying that the State should have that authority.

Actually, that's a very easy argument. Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, et al can speak for Romanism better than I, but Catholics can definitely argue that States/civil authorities are limited to the role allowed by God (per the Nicene Creed). Since the civil authorities must live up to God's standard, the ancap can argue that this is an impossibility and the State should thus be abolished. You would do well to study Catholicism seriously before leveling this sort of claim.

The Reformers I've read are quite Statist. If you don't mind, elaborate on and prove your claim of:

If anything dispensationalism would be more consistent with ancap because then you can basically throw out the Old Testament (But then, you can pretty much defend anything you want at that point).

 

[Sola_Fide]

Actually, that's a very easy argument. Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, et al can speak for Romanism better than I, but Catholics can definitely argue that States/civil authorities are limited to the role allowed by God (per the Nicene Creed). Since the civil authorities must live up to God's standard, the ancap can argue that this is an impossibility and the State should thus be abolished. You would do well to study Catholicism seriously before leveling this sort of claim.

No, I think you would do well to study Catholicism, because the Catholic catechism not only supports statism and redistribution, but world government.

I've posted this several times on this board.

 

[jmdrake]

You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative. We do not.
The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.

Do you believe the Bible to be a "living breathing document" the same way that some people believe the constitution to be a "living breathing document?" Okay. You cede authority to interpret scripture to the church. The church of which time period? I know TER is all into reading the church Fathers to see what some particular scripture means. Fine and dandy. I will use writings of church fathers, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley and others as commentary but not as authoritative scripture. But even those using post apostolic writings as authority can find themselves coming to a conclusion about something written that disagrees with "the Church." It's dangerous to liberty for the people of a nation to assume that what is "constitutional" is whatever 9 men in robes determine it to be at the moment. At some point people should study the constitution for themselves and evaluate if the latest ruling that says the state can do X, Y or Z really measures up to what the constitution actually says.

I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self. That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.

Yep. And the Eastern Orthodox church takes the same comfort in a different bride. And yes, I know the two groups share the same belief WRT transubstantiation just like Protestants and RCC and EO share the same belief WRT the Trinity. Which makes the whole "We take comfort in belonging to the one true church" all the more laughable. That said, most Protestants are very much like you. They rely on what that pastor says without deep critical study as well.

I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.

James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.

1 John 1:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

What do you believe ^those verses to mean? Or should I ask what do you believe "the Church" teaches those verses to mean?

The church plays an important role in introducing the Christian to the Holy Spirit. But isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to take over and guide and some point? Do you believe God wants you to always be, in your words, "stupid?"

I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists. That part I don't get. If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?

I trust in the promises of God to give me the Holy Spirit on a personal level and not just entrust the Holy Spirit to "the Church" whichever organization is "the Church."

 

[jmdrake]

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then why not?
If we all have the inherent ability to decide for ourselves what Scripture is and what it means, then what reason do we have to have families?

Why are you a Roman Catholic Christian and not an Eastern Orthodox Christian? Did you decide for yourself or did "the Church" decide for you that it is "the Church?"