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

[Sola_Fide]

How do you leap from "The States/civil authorities are limited to the role allowed by God" to "The States/civil authorities shouldn't exist." That leap doesn't even make sense. churches will never perfectly live up to God's standards, nor will families, nor will employers, should all of those things be abolished to?


I understand that many are, but unlike the RCC in relation to itself, Reformed theology doesn't claim the Reformers are always right.

That's a good point FF. During the Reformation, the motto was "Reformed, and always Reforming", and sometimes it was shortened to "always reforming". And what a Biblical concept that was because the man of God must always come back to the word of God, in every generation, and measure himself and his traditions by that ultimate standard.

That is how a person who believes in sovereign grace can disagree with the Reformers and even condemn them....because the man of God takes every tradition and measures it by that sole rule of faith and practice, the Scripture.

 

[fisharmor]

That's a good point FF. During the Reformation, the motto was "Reformed, and always Reforming", and sometimes it was shortened to "always reforming".

Today it is "always fracturing".
When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable. There is no reformed church. Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.

Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion. Religion is irrelevant. He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
Is that also your position? If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?

 

[erowe1]

Today it is "always fracturing".
When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable. There is no reformed church. Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.

Actually, you can divide it down beyond the gaggles. Each and every believer in Jesus is a unique individual with a unique way of understanding the Gospel. This isn't a new development since the Reformation. It has never been otherwise.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Today it is "always fracturing".
When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable. There is no reformed church. Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.

Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion. Religion is irrelevant. He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
Is that also your position? If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?

There is no such thing in the Bible as "The Church", meaning a hierarchical authority that defines doctrines for Christians. In the Bible, the word "church" or "ecclesia" or "called out ones" is always a description of the body of believers. That's it. The church in the Bible is simply the collection of individual people around the world whom God has elected.

Secondly, you cite division and fracturing as bad things. It is the opposite. Divisions are good, because God's truth is often revealed in them. This is explained several times and in several different ways in the Bible.

 

[fisharmor]

Actually, you can divide it down beyond the gaggles. Each and every believer in Jesus is a unique individual with a unique way of understanding the Gospel. This isn't a new development since the Reformation. It has never been otherwise.

Do you place equal importance on PierzStyx's unique way of understanding the Gospel?
If not, then what is it about his understanding which makes it anything other than what you describe?

There is no such thing in the Bible as "The Church", meaning a hierarchical authority that defines doctrines for Christians.

I see this idea pushed pretty constantly by atheists: this is the first time I've seen a believer cozy up so close to this claim....
There's an alternate interpretation of that hierarchy: that it's an expression of preexisting doctrines. That there is a horse pulling the cart.

Secondly, you cite division and fracturing as bad things. It is the opposite. Divisions are good, because God's truth is often revealed in them.

I understand your point, having previously subscribed to it. However, there are two sides to every division. On one side is the group which in earnest is trying to discover God's truth.
On the other side is the group which is plainly stating "This is quite simply something we have never understood to be the case, and is a totally unagreed-upon invention, unrecognized by history."

I imagine you'd say those exact words to Pierzstyx, right?

Those words also apply to Sola Scriptura.

 

[erowe1]

Do you place equal importance on PierzStyx's unique way of understanding the Gospel?
If not, then what is it about his understanding which makes it anything other than what you describe?

I prefer not to get personal about a member here like that.

But I'm not the judge. Neither is there some organization of human beings on this earth who is. Jesus is.

Are there people who think they have saving faith in Jesus when they really don't? Yes, I'm certain of that.

 

[fisharmor]

I prefer not to get personal about a member here like that.

Who's getting personal? He subscribes to a system of belief which has committed ideas to paper. We can read those ideas and therefore get some idea what he as an individual also believes. I'm not attacking him. I'm pointing out that if he subscribes to what has been written down about Mormonism, and we have a reasonable assurance that he does, then he subscribes to an interpretation of the Gospel which differs radically from yours. I'm not making any value judgments on his beliefs, I'm simply pointing out that it's not the same.

But since you won't draw that line, let's just look at Islam. Do you draw a line there? That's nothing more than a different way of understanding the Gospel after all - it's an understanding which rejects it.

I'm having a hard time understanding how what you and Sola are saying doesn't just reduce to relativism. I'm also having a hard time understanding how you guys don't see this: when you invent enough entirely new doctrines to draw 30,000 lines in the sand, of course nobody is going to be willing to make a call as to which square foot of the beach is the right one to stand on. The lines become meaningless, as they have, the Church becomes meaningless, as it has, worship becomes meaningless, as it has, and even membership becomes meaningless, as it has.

But I'm not the judge. Neither is there some organization of human beings on this earth who is. Jesus is.

Nobody here has claimed that there is an organization of human beings which is the judge of what Christianity is. As I stated before, there is a difference between declaring that something exists by fiat, and recognizing the existence of something that predates your organization.

Are there people who think they have saving faith in Jesus when they really don't? Yes, I'm certain of that.

What I've tapped into is the idea that a lot of people have been actively nurturing their faith for a long time in ways that are strictly verboten by Reformation doctrine. (One of the only lines they'll actually respect.) It's not a binary equation. There are things one can do.

(I'm expecting that to be taken out of context by at least one person here...)

 

[erowe1]

But since you won't draw that line, let's just look at Islam. Do you draw a line there? That's nothing more than a different way of understanding the Gospel after all - it's an understanding which rejects it.

Exactly. It rejects it.

 

[moostraks]

No Christian says that there is an infallible hierarchy that decides what the Scripture is.

You have made yourself the infallibile hierarchy of one which judges others based upon how they mirror your personal vision.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Do you place equal importance on PierzStyx's unique way of understanding the Gospel?
If not, then what is it about his understanding which makes it anything other than what you describe?


I see this idea pushed pretty constantly by atheists: this is the first time I've seen a believer cozy up so close to this claim....
There's an alternate interpretation of that hierarchy: that it's an expression of preexisting doctrines. That there is a horse pulling the cart.


I understand your point, having previously subscribed to it. However, there are two sides to every division. On one side is the group which in earnest is trying to discover God's truth.
On the other side is the group which is plainly stating "This is quite simply something we have never understood to be the case, and is a totally unagreed-upon invention, unrecognized by history."

I imagine you'd say those exact words to Pierzstyx, right?

Those words also apply to Sola Scriptura.

The irony is that Mormonism and Rome have the exact same argument, that they are the true infallible hierarchical church and they alone can define what the Scriptures are. It's a circular argument. They can't prove that they are the true church, they assume it as their first principle.

A Biblical Christian has a circular argument too, but his final authority is God speaking in the Scriptures. This is the same final authority that Jesus and the apostles appealed to. But what it shows are the differences between the final authorities. One final authority is the God of the universe who never changes, and the other final authority is a group of fallible men in a church who always change.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Today it is "always fracturing".
When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable. There is no reformed church. Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.

Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion. Religion is irrelevant. He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
Is that also your position? If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?

I find it amazing that someone can believe in freedom and believe in the absolute authority of "The Church" to define doctrine at the same time.

Its really a lot like people who argue for SCOTUS' absolute right to "interpret" the US Constitution "because otherwise there would be millions of different interpretations."

 

[Christian Liberty]

The irony is that Mormonism and Rome have the exact same argument, that they are the true infallible hierarchical church and they alone can define what the Scriptures are. It's a circular argument. They can't prove that they are the true church, they assume it as their first principle.

A Biblical Christian has a circular argument too, but his final authority is God speaking in the Scriptures. This is the same final authority that Jesus and the apostles appealed to. But what it shows are the differences between the final authorities. One final authority is the God of the universe who never changes, and the other final authority is a group of fallible men in a church who always change.

I think that circular arguments are inevitable at some point. Maybe sometimes you can start with an agreed premise and prove a conclusion based on it, but at some point you either go circular or accept axioms.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think that circular arguments are inevitable at some point. Maybe sometimes you can start with an agreed premise and prove a conclusion based on it, but at some point you either go circular or accept axioms.

At the starting point of every worldview that exists, there are unproven axioms that govern how the man sees all of the "evidence" (even what he accepts as evidence in the first place).

 

[moostraks]

Today it is "always fracturing".
When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable. There is no reformed church. Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.

Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion. Religion is irrelevant. He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
Is that also your position? If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?

Um, pretty sure Pete is not leaning upon himself but the Spirit. Why are you not addressing any of jmdrake's complaints toward the one, true church argument? Especially since TER seems to be unavailable to respond at the moment?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I find it amazing that someone can believe in freedom and believe in the absolute authority of "The Church" to define doctrine at the same time.

Its really a lot like people who argue for SCOTUS' absolute right to "interpret" the US Constitution "because otherwise there would be millions of different interpretations."

I agree. The worldview that says there is a central eartly authority who determines what is and what isn't right to believe about truth is one of the most contradictory mindsets to freedom, and is a direct corollary to statism.

 

[Christian Liberty]

At the starting point of every worldview that exists, there are unproven axioms that govern how the man sees all of the "evidence" (even what he accepts as evidence in the first place).

I agree. The worldview that says there is a central eartly authority who determines what is and what isn't right to believe about truth is one of the most contradictory mindsets to freedom, and is a direct corollary to statism.

Yep. Agreed on both counts.

 

[jmdrake]

Today it is "always fracturing".
When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable. There is no reformed church. Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.

Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion. Religion is irrelevant. He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
Is that also your position? If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?

Two simple questions. One, what do you believe the apostle John meant by this?

But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

Question two. Do you believe that the one and only purpose of the church is to interpret the Bible for you? Because if you believe there are other reasons for the church than that then you should where the "church fits into all of this" for those of us that don't believe God meant the church to take over the role of the Holy Spirit.

Here is the main purpose for the church.

Hebrews 10:23-25
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

 

[moostraks]

I agree. The worldview that says there is a central eartly authority who determines what is and what isn't right to believe about truth is one of the most contradictory mindsets to freedom, and is a direct corollary to statism.

You keep avoiding what others ask you on this issue. Since you make a point of telling others the state of their damnation why is this not just a chaotic infallible hierarchy of one?

You hold one interpretation. I talk to you and I must mirror your understanding or you damn me. Aggramatos (sp?) held another opinion. I talked to him, I must mirror his present enlightenment. So on and so forth because any disagreement to a favored position at the time results in me being accused of hating the Creator. It is constant turmoil to those who are conscientious about their faith.

So one says I will seek the historic position, but whose position? Personally I gave up on the historic search, at present, with the EO, because I felt like I was asking the wrong questions.

At present, the questions, for me, would be:

Are you growing in the Spirit?
Is the evident by your fruits?

I don't have the ability to tend anyone's garden but my own and I shouldn't because who am I to say what is within the soul of another person? The one true church argument became just as mind numbing as which of the so called reformed paths were right. So I lean on the Spirit and am watchful for the next fork in the road...

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Two simple questions. One, what do you believe the apostle John meant by this?

But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

Question two. Do you believe that the one and only purpose of the church is to interpret the Bible for you? Because if you believe there are other reasons for the church than that then you should where the "church fits into all of this" for those of us that don't believe God meant the church to take over the role of the Holy Spirit.

Here is the main purpose for the church.

Hebrews 10:23-25
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Hi Jm, In simple terms, I believe church is for preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ, and then for believers to witness to this in their families, homes, neighborhoods and bring others to the preacher for further instruction in God's Word. This preaching does include doctrine, as Paul, Peter, Timothy, give us so beautifully and clearly.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Your questions :

Are you growing in the Spirit?
Is the evident by your fruits?

are not correct because doing good works is 1. Not the basis of salvation, and 2. Not the alone evidence of salvation.

Atheists who hate God do "good works", does that mean they have fruits of the Spirit? The Pharisees did good works. We're they saved? No.

It's not good works alone that are key. It is believing the gospel that is key. If you believe that, then that is evidence God has chosen you and He gives you the good works.