Sola Scriptora

[EricH]

Sola Scriptura

by A. A. Hodge (1823-1886)

[Originally published in 1860, A. A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology is still regarded as a great introduction to classical Protestant theology. This electronic edition (which is an unedited reproduction of chapter five of Hodge's book) was made available by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink. It is in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed. The title "Sola Scriptura" was given for this electronic edition, but the actual chapter heading appears below as it was originally printed.]

THE RULE OF FAITH & PRACTICE.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.

1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule of faith and practice?

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the Church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2nd, to interpret Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition.--" Decrees of Council of Trent," Session IV, and "Dens Theo.," Tom. 2., N. 80 and 81.

3. By what arguments do they seek to establish the authority of tradition? By what criterion do they distinguish true traditions from false, and on what grounds do they base the authority of the traditions they receive?

1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are--(1.) Scripture authorizes it, 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6. (2.) The early fathers asserted its authority and founded their faith largely upon it. (3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writings. The scriptures themselves are handed down to us by the evidence of tradition, and the stream cannot rise higher than its source. (4.) The necessity of the case. (a.) Scripture is obscure, needs tradition as its interpreter. (b.) Scripture is incomplete as a rule of faith and practice; since there are many doctrines and institutions, universally recognized, which are founded only upon tradition as a supplement to Scripture. (5.) Analogy. every state recognizes both written and unwritten, common and statute law.

2nd. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists confine the application of the rule to the first three or four centuries. the Romanists recognize that as an authoritative consent which is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in general council, or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the church whatever.

3rd. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true. (1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church expressed by Catholic consent.

4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.

2nd. It is improbable a priori that God would supplement Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Because Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below (question 20), the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately upon tradition.

3rd The whole ground upon which Romanists base the authority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions.

They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as will be shown below (question 18).

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions unknown to the ancients.

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of Scripture. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of faith?

Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity or clarity, and accessibility.

6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.

8. How may this completeness be proved, from the design of scripture?

The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it.

"Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.--John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.

9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved?

As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have always been practically found to be such by the true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel all pretended -traditions and priestly innovations.

10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny the perspicuity of Scripture?

Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly obscure until explained by the event. But they do affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught.

Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and unlearned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves.

11. How can the perspicuity of scripture be proved from the fact that it is a law and a message?

We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1) a law to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of commanding and teaching is to charge God with clearing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.

12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?

Ps. 19:7,8; 119:105,130; 2 Cor. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:18,19; Hab. 2:2; 2 Tim. 3:15,17.

13. By what other arguments may this point be established?

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such.--Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

2nd. All Christians indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures.--2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39.

3rd. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary, is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.

14. What was the third quality required to constitute the scriptures the sufficient rule of faith and practice?

Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the pre-eminent characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pretended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this matter is simply to give all currency to the word of God.

15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the rule in questions of faith?

"A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." The Protestant doctrine is--

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2nd. (1.) negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians.

(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27), by each individual for himself; with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.

16. What is the Romish doctrine regarding the authority of the church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of all controversies?

The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infallible in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting the original revelation communicated through the apostles.

The church, therefore, authoritatively determines--1st. What is Scripture. 2nd. What is genuine tradition 3rd. What is the true sense of Scripture and 'tradition', and what is the true application of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief or practice.

This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official capacity, and in the bishops as a body, as when assembled in general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of pope or council.--"Decrees of Council of Trent," Session 4.; "Deus Theo.," N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. "Bellarmine," Lib. 3., de eccles., cap. 14., and Lib. 2., de council., cap. 2.

17. By what arguments do they seek to establish this authority?

1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apostles, and to their official successor, securing their infallibility, and consequent authority.--Matt. 16:18; 18:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; John 16:13; 20:23.

2nd. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the world.--Matt. 28:19, 20; Luke 10:16, etc.

3rd. The church is declared to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," and it is affirmed that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her."

4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. Matt. 16:19; 18:15-18.

5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth and error, and must consequently be qualified and authorized to do so--2 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 16:17; 2 John 10.

6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an ever-living, visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and Judge.

7th. From universal analogy every community among men has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would be of no value without the other.

8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and universality, which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true church.

18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church be shown to be utterly baseless?

1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race.

2nd. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the faith.

3rd. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:33,47,48,49, and 1 John 2:20,27.

4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the precious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For--(1.) the word church ekklhsia is a collective term, embracing the effectually called klhtoi or regenerated.--Rom. 1:7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Jude 1:; Rev. 17:14; also Rom. 9:24; 1 Cor. 7:18-24; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; Eph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such.--Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5; John 10:27; Col. 1:18,24. (3.) The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as equivalent to "the called,""the saints,""all true worshippers of God;" witness the salutations of 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles.-- 1 Cor. 1:30; 3:16; 6:11,19; Eph. 2:3-8, and 19-22; 1 Thess. 5:4,5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 2:10; 1 Pet. 2:9.

5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the "signs of an apostle."--2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:1,12; Acts 1:21,22.

6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scripture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since their universal judgment never has been and never can be impartially collected and pronounced.

7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance, of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the Scriptures from the people.

8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual religion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If; therefore, we admit that the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself; viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.

19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scriptures are the final judge of controversies be established?

That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts:

1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13.

2nd. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, question 13.

3rd. All Christians are commanded to search the scriptures, and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers.--John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1,2.

4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and interpreter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:47-49; 1 John 2:20,27; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17.

5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it "purify the heart." Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately apprehends on its own experimental evidence.--John 17:17, 19; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:22.

20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the scriptures are the word of God?

Their objection is, that as we receive the scriptures as the word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount.

This is absurd, for two reasons--

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the church, but--(1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident (a) from the nature of their doctrine, (b) from their miracles,

[jmwhalen]

I certainly DONT adhere to any RCC dogmas...

BUT THEY ARENT ALONE on this thread.

almost all denoms have "come from her"----they are STILL based in

wrong teaching.

Replacement theology---

its not a new body.

___

Opinions and the truth are independent. The body of Christ did not begin at Pentecost. You assert that there was one "the church" throughout the Holy Bible. Scripture's testimony is the opposite. The church, which is his body, in this dispensation, was a mystery, "....which was kept secret since the world began..."(Romans 16:25), "...which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men...."(Eph. 3:5), "...which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God...."(not the OT-Eph. 3:9), and "...which hath been hid from ages and from generations...."(Col. 1:26).

The LORD God would not have you to be ".... ignorant of this mystery...."(Romans 11:25). My charge is to show you the mystery:

"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery(emphasis mine), which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God...." Eph. 3:9

And part of the mystery is the body of Christ, which did not exist until the raising up of the apostle Paul. You can be a psychic, or whatever, but don't try to suggest that you believe the Holy Bible's statement that the church , "....which was kept secret since the world began..."(Romans 16:25), "...which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men...."(Eph. 3:5), "...which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God...."(not the OT-Eph. 3:9), and "...which hath been hid from ages and from generations...."(Col. 1:26), when you state "the "qahal" is ONE CONSISTENT BODY---from Abel til now

[jmwhalen]

Qestion to Shiloh & JWhalen:

Where was your church in 400AD?

Thanks,

Fiosh

__________________________

Your question(apparently) displays your ignorance(biblically, ignorant does not mean stupid-it merely means lack of knowledge), as does your previous posts, of the concept of "church"(it is not some hierarchial organization, such as the behemoth superstructure of the RCC-it is a spiritual organism of people). And because you do not "rightly divide the word of truth"(2 Timothy 2:15), you fail to distinguish the various "churches"(called out assembly) in the Holy Bible-there is more than one. For example:

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:..." Acts 7:38

This was a "called-out assebly" of Jews-no "Christians"(by definition).

Many Catholics even try to argue that this is the RCC-"mental gymnastics"=another false doctrine-some "mystical RCC".

The "...church, Which is his body..."(Ephesians 1:22,23), the Body of Christ, in this current "...dispensation of the grace of God...."(Eph. 3:2), did not exist until the raising up of the apostle Paul, and is not to be confused with "the church identified in the OT(Acts 7:38), "the church" identified by the Lord Jesus Christ in Mt. 16:18, nor with "the church" identified at Pentecost. These are all different "called-out assembles."

If you would like to discuss this in detail, let me know.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

First of all thanks for calling me ignorant for asking an honest question.

Secondly, you presume to know alot about me from ~6 words.

I am merely trying to determine YOUR view of what constituted the early Church.

You guys really make a girl wanna jump the fence and join your side with all your Christian warmth!

____________________

My comment:

Repetition is learning-"ignorant" is a good biblical word(Paul uses it over and over), and does not mean "stupid". The word means, biblically, "lack of knowlegde". My post was in response to your question, a question that you gave no context, or reason as to its relevance to the issue at hand. Do not confuse your lack of understanding, yes, your ignorance of the biblical concept of the word "church", given your question, as opposed to the convoluted and unscriptural defintion of the word embraced by the RCC(you?), with error on the part of what I wrote, and do not confuse your lack of understanding, yes, your ignorance of the biblical definition of the word "ignorance", with any supposed lack of "Christian warmth" on my part. If correcting someone on doctrine, which all Christians are commanded to do by the LORD God, then you have either 1. not read the Holy Bible, which from Genesis to Revelation is a testimomy to the importance of "sound doctrine", or 2. confused tolerance for ideas(rationality), with tolerance for people(see my previous posts on this board re. "tolerance").

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

Don't confuse disagreement with your opinion with ignorance.

___

I do not, and did not. I never referred to you as ignorant for disagreeing with me. I cited the RCC(your?) ignorance of the concept of "church" as ignorant. And I cited scripture for the biblical definition of "church" as evidence of the RCC(your?) ignorance. You may want to refer to my argument as an "opinion", but I will let the board decide as to whether I "let scripture do my talking", as opposed to Catholics typically citing what "the church", the RCC, says=the RCC's opinion="the church" is the final authority, not the Holy Bible. And this is the issue-AUTHORITY. I stand on the Holy Bible as the FINAL Authority on doctrine, and the RCC does not, you do not.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[Smalcald]

"21. How is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge, derived from the diversities of sects and doctrines among Protestants, to be answered?

1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, but only that when exercised in a humble, believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth.

2nd. The term Protestant is simply negative, and is assumed by many infidels who protest as much against the Scriptures as they do against Rome. But Bible Protestants, among all their circumstantial differences, are, to a wonderful degree, agreed upon the essentials of faith and practice. Witness their hymns and devotional literature.

3rd. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure in applying faithfully the Protestant principles for which we contend. Men do not simply and without prejudice take their creed from the Bible."

I thought this was interesting and a more basic attempt to address Pax/Fiosh concerns about authority and splintering within and among non-Catholic Christians.

If we look at number three with respect to one basic issues of the visible Church, that is who to ordain, I think we see more clearly the problem Fiosh is talking about. The bible is clear that only men are to be ordained as ministers, the bible is also clear that gay sex, indeed that all sex outside of marriage between a man and a women is sin. Now we have Protestant denominations claiming to rely only on scripture as a final authority ordaining both women as deacons and elders, and we have Protestant denominations also ordaining active unrepentant gays, and moving toward establishing gay marriage in these Churches. It is not an issue of sin in these Churches which exist in all churches catholic and protestant alike, but it is the willful acceptance of non-biblical practices, non-biblical doctrines.

Now I think any congregation that does this is obviously not taking their creed from the bible. But that is the problem, without creeds, without authority, the term bible believing is meaningless and in fact worthless. David Koresh claimed the bible alone, so what. To develop a creed to develop ways to administer the Sacraments to preach the Word, to develop the hymns and devotional literature mentioned above we believe we need a functioning on-going visible Church, thus we have denominations. To administer baptism to administer communion we need functioning on-going visible congregations ordaining men of God.

You cannot be a believing Christian who follows the bible, and not try to belong to a Christian congregation (sometimes we are between sometimes we have not found one yet, but we should be moving in that direction). We are not our own authority, even if we sit at home and read the bible, it is not just us and God a two way street, it is a multidimensional street between God, our brethren AND us. Of course all of that authority must be based only on Holy Scripture, because outside of that we only have one thing left, and that is politics, but Holy Scripture gives us that, it shows how to ordain, who to ordain, how to administer the Sacraments, how to act as a visible Church.

[Kansasdad]

The problem that isn't getting answered is. If two people read the exact same Bible and are discussing the exact same verse and have very different opinions at to the meaning of the verse or verses. So much of a difference in fact that they form totally different theologies based from their interpretations. Where do you turn. You can't turn to scripture, it is scripture itself that is being debated. Thus if you have the church fathers stating that this is how the Apostles have taught us as to the interpretation of this verse, or issue and you have some one hundreds or thousands of years later saying yes but this is how I interpret this verse or issue, Does the Bible tell us whom has the authority of the Holy spirit?

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

[EricH]

The problem that isn't getting answered is. If two people read the exact same Bible and are discussing the exact same verse and have very different opinions at to the meaning of the verse or verses. So much of a difference in fact that they form totally different theologies based from their interpretations. Where do you turn. You can't turn to scripture, it is scripture itself that is being debated. Thus if you have the church fathers stating that this is how the Apostles have taught us as to the interpretation of this verse, or issue and you have some one hundreds or thousands of years later saying yes but this is how I interpret this verse or issue, Does the Bible tell us whom has the authority of the Holy spirit?

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

This is a very good question. The problem is that the Bible itself in no place affirms that the magesterium is the answer to this problem. And even if you appeal to the church fathers, not all the church fathers agree on what passages mean. The bottom line is that scripture itself claims to be the final authority. And if it is the final authority, the only way we can be sure we are on safe ground, is if we are lined up with what it teaches.

So the answer to your question is that we keep discussing it. And we do so in such a way that points back to the text itelf, and not a central authorities interpretation of that text. Because the issue I have is this. For many doctrines that have been proposed here by Catholics, there is no direct scriptural support. They cannot even tell you how they arrived at the position from any scriptures they quote. They have to appeal to the magesterium. At the very least I would hop that if the magesterium is making the right interpretation, they should be able to support from the Bible alone why they believe what they believe. For example, the assumption of Mary. I have yet to see a scripture that directly supports or teaches this event.

The Bible tells us that all believers have the power of the Holy Spirit. But it in no place guarantees that we will get it right 100 percent of the time. That is why all of us need each other. You are correct. From a strictly human perspective and a practical one it is not the cleanest. But from scripture it appears that it is the way that God designed it. Why? I could only speculate. Maybe so we would function as a body, rather than looking to one person or a small group of people for the answers.

[Fiosh]

Greetings all,

I've been giving this matter lots of thought and prayer today. I sincerely want to keep a pure heart that strives only to glorify God---I often fail. I sometimes find myself getting drawn in the direction of "proving I'm right" and I don't want to go there. When I feel that happening I walk away from the keyboard and pray for the Holy Spirit to redirect me.

It is so easy to hide behind motives of promoting "truth" and bearing the "Gospel message" to support what we say. It is so easy to pretend that we only what to show a brother or sister the truth. When what we really want to do is show that we know more...and we are right.

I can be as guilty of this as any of you, from time to time. We all need to be mindful and guard our own prideful hearts.

This study should be only about searching for truth..........together. We need not agree. But we all profess a love of Jesus Christ. So we need to treat each other with the love and respect due to brothers and sisters. We need to remember that Jesus once prayed "that they may be one"............it is still His desire today.

Anyway.............JMHO

Back to the discussion.

My problem is not that there is not enough support for my argument. It is that there is so much I don't know where to begin. I don't want to cut and paste but I don't want to plagarize. So I tried to hit a balance and paraphrase. Sure, if I had several months of study, I'm sure I could develop my own thesis. Unfortunately, I've got a few hours on a Friday night.

To start, a few thoughts about what's been said:

1. RE: Hodge's explanation of Sola Scriptura: ok, guys, be real. It's ludicrous to ask us to accept the anti-Catholic rhetoric of a 19th cent Protestant as the genuine article, and to use it as our working definition.

2. We all agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is perfect. No teaching, practice or doctrine that is anti-Biblical should be accepted

3. Anyone who reads and interprets Scripture does so within a framework of knowledge and life experience that is uniquely their own. You are influenced by commentaries you have read; theologies you have studied; sermons and lectures you have listened to; even people you have met. You do not read and interpret Scripture in a vacuum.

3a. You interpret Scripture in light of your own personal tradition. And even if everyone uses the same rules of exegesis; even if everyone could read Greek and Hebrew, you are still influenced by your own biases.

4. Sola Scriptura assumes that if we are all reading the same book we will all have the same beliefs---this just isn't the case

5. There IS definitely a visible church described in the Bible. True, the body of Christ includes all believers. Yet, time and again the Bible refers to an authoritative, hierarchical, structure within the body.

6. To deny the existence of an authority within the church leaves us all to interpret for ourselves what is divinely revealed, and in essence implies that we are ALL the source of our own infallible truth.

7. "Tradition is not a dirty word in Scripture:

*2 Thess 2: 14-15 "So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

*I Cor 11:2 "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

Ok, specifics....

Reasons to reject Sola Scriptura:

1. It is unbiblical. I constantly hear you citing 2 Tim 3:16-17 "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching,...."

And we all say, "Amen". No argument from me. That's what my Church teaches also. But please take note that in verse 15 Paul tells Timothy that he is referring to the scriptures Timothy has known since his infancy---the Old Testament. So if you want to claim that what Paul just told Timothy is that "the Scriptures" Paul is referring to are all you need---you just eliminated the New Testament.

a) Even in the Old Testament, we see time and time again where oral tradition is treated as "God-breathed". Moses wrote the Pentateuch hundreds and even thousands of years after the events took place. Yet for all those years the oral tradition was passed from generation to generation, protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

b) All the Old Testament prophets read and interpreted Scripture for the people. "And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading" Nehemiah 8:8

c) In the New Testament ALL teaching is done orally; the Gospel is living and interpreted by the Apostles and the disciples they anoint. And it is crystal clear that MUCH more was taught by Jesus and the Apostles than was ever written down.

* I Peter 1:25 "But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached to you". NOT written down---oral.

*In Acts 13:5 Paul and Barnabas preached in Salamis to the Jews. But we are never given the contents of their preaching.

* Acts 20:27, 31-32 Paul tells us that he taught 3 years to the Ephesians. Do you think those 6 chapters are all he said?

* Isaiah 59:21 describes the New Covenant as being passed down orally "from mouth to mouth"

* Romans 10: 17 says "faith comes from what is heard"

There is not one verse in the Bible that says the written word of God is the only word of God. Tradition is simply the oral component of the Gospel mentioned throughout Scripture.

d) Of the 12 Apostles, only 3 wrote anything down. What about all that the others must have preached and taught?

Tradition is the means by which we know what the Apostles taught orally.

2 Tim 2:2 "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." i.e. oral tradition

e) I Timothy 3: 15 calls the church "the pillar and bulwark of the truth"

What does he mean by the church. If he means all believers en masse--take a look around--with all our different beliefs could he be talking about ALL of us? I don't believe so. There existed at that time a structure and a hierarchy that protected the Truth. The Apostles preached, they anointed disciples and bishops who taught and led churches. They did not tell people to interpret for themselves.

* "even the gates of hell will not prevail against it" Again this implies absolute surety against corruption of the truth. It implies a deposit of faith protected and secure

2. IT IS UNHISTORICAL

When Jesus ascended into heaven He left behind a Church, not a book. And that church thrived and grew for years before a single word was written down. So clearly the New Testament church was based on oral teaching. Sola Scriptura would have been impossible.

THE BIBLE CAME FROM THIS CHURCH----FROM ORAL TRADITION.

The church took almost 400 years to define the inspired books of the canon of Scripture. It is only thru the oral tradition of the church that we know Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew and Mark wrote Mark.

3. Sola Scriptura is INCONSISTENT

Let suppose that your church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. What if a visiting preacher wanted to preach a sermon. And suppose he prayed and searched the Scripture and believed that Baptism was not necessary for salvation. Would you let him preach at your church? Why not ? if you are both sola Scriptura, and both believers, there should not be a problem.

Sola Scriptura is itself a tradition that only began in the 16th cent. So the question is not whether you follow a tradition but whether you can trace your tradition to Jesus and the Apostles.

If not, it is a man-made tradition.

Need we address the splintering of the Protestant church?

Eph 4:4 "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism"

I Cor 1:10 "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind, and the same judgment."

Sola Scriptura leads the faithful to dissension and disagreement.

Sola Scriptura did not even exist for 1500 years, when it was "suddenly discovered" . Until that time, no one in the Christian church preached the doctrine of the Bible ALONE as the sole authority. All the fathers and saints of the early church got it wrong! ???? Until the 16th cent, Christians agreed to a living tradition and the Bible as constituting the deposit of faith, and the church with the authority to interpret it.

And, of course, we all agree that anything that is contrary to the Bible is never accepted.

bottom line: The Church, not the individual, is given the responsibility of guarding the faith--of being "the pillar and bulwark" that guides the faithful. The Holy Spirit is promised to protect the church in her duties so that "even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

God knows they have tried!

Peace,

Fiosh

[Fiosh]

Qestion to Shiloh & JWhalen:

Where was your church in 400AD?

Thanks,

Fiosh

__________________________

Your question(apparently) displays your ignorance(biblically, ignorant does not mean stupid-it merely means lack of knowledge), as does your previous posts, of the concept of "church"(it is not some hierarchial organization, such as the behemoth superstructure of the RCC-it is a spiritual organism of people). And because you do not "rightly divide the word of truth"(2 Timothy 2:15), you fail to distinguish the various "churches"(called out assembly) in the Holy Bible-there is more than one. For example:

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:..." Acts 7:38

This was a "called-out assebly" of Jews-no "Christians"(by definition).

Many Catholics even try to argue that this is the RCC-"mental gymnastics"=another false doctrine-some "mystical RCC".

The "...church, Which is his body..."(Ephesians 1:22,23), the Body of Christ, in this current "...dispensation of the grace of God...."(Eph. 3:2), did not exist until the raising up of the apostle Paul, and is not to be confused with "the church identified in the OT(Acts 7:38), "the church" identified by the Lord Jesus Christ in Mt. 16:18, nor with "the church" identified at Pentecost. These are all different "called-out assembles."

If you would like to discuss this in detail, let me know.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

First of all thanks for calling me ignorant for asking an honest question.

Secondly, you presume to know alot about me from ~6 words.

I am merely trying to determine YOUR view of what constituted the early Church.

You guys really make a girl wanna jump the fence and join your side with all your Christian warmth!

____________________

My comment:

Repetition is learning-"ignorant" is a good biblical word(Paul uses it over and over), and does not mean "stupid". The word means, biblically, "lack of knowlegde". My post was in response to your question, a question that you gave no context, or reason as to its relevance to the issue at hand. Do not confuse your lack of understanding, yes, your ignorance of the biblical concept of the word "church", given your question, as opposed to the convoluted and unscriptural defintion of the word embraced by the RCC(you?), with error on the part of what I wrote, and do not confuse your lack of understanding, yes, your ignorance of the biblical definition of the word "ignorance", with any supposed lack of "Christian warmth" on my part. If correcting someone on doctrine, which all Christians are commanded to do by the LORD God, then you have either 1. not read the Holy Bible, which from Genesis to Revelation is a testimomy to the importance of "sound doctrine", or 2. confused tolerance for ideas(rationality), with tolerance for people(see my previous posts on this board re. "tolerance").

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

Don't confuse disagreement with your opinion with ignorance.

___

I do not, and did not. I never referred to you as ignorant for disagreeing with me. I cited the RCC(your?) ignorance of the concept of "church" as ignorant. And I cited scripture for the biblical definition of "church" as evidence of the RCC(your?) ignorance. You may want to refer to my argument as an "opinion", but I will let the board decide as to whether I "let scripture do my talking", as opposed to Catholics typically citing what "the church", the RCC, says=the RCC's opinion="the church" is the final authority, not the Holy Bible. And this is the issue-AUTHORITY. I stand on the Holy Bible as the FINAL Authority on doctrine, and the RCC does not, you do not.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

With all due respect, John, it is your concept of "church" that is unbiblical. Does that make you "ignorant"?

[EricH]

To start, a few thoughts about what's been said:

1. RE: Hodge's explanation of Sola Scriptura: ok, guys, be real. It's ludicrous to ask us to accept the anti-Catholic rhetoric of a 19th cent Protestant as the genuine article, and to use it as our working definition.

Lets begin by analyzing this statement. Basically you are saying

1. Hodge was ati Catholic

2. Hodge lived in the 19th century

3. Because of both of these facts, his definition of Sola Scriptura cannot be used or discussed

I'm sorry Fiosh, I don't see the logic here. Does that mean that if I can find Catholic doctrines that were written a long time ago by men who had certain biases, they are not open for discussion? Do you ignore them? Secondly, your contention that Hodge was anti-Catholic has not been substantiated. Clearly he disagrees with Catholic positions. But that does not make him anti catholic. This is basically an attempt to poison the well by attacking the person, rather than their position.

Hodges statement regarding sola scriptura is accurate. You desire to dismiss it because of the time in which it was written and because of biases you feel he may have had, just don't hold up in the face of logic. It would be like me saying, "Common guys, lets be real. You are asking me to use doctrines as working definitions that were written by men who lived centuries ago, and hated protestants so much they burnt them at the stake." That is equally unlogical. The fact that the doctrines are old, or that they were devised by men who had biases is not the issue. The issue is, "are they biblical"?

[EricH]

To start, a few thoughts about what's been said:

2. We all agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is perfect. No teaching, practice or doctrine that is anti-Biblical should be accepted

But that is not the real issue here. The real issue is are there other sources of truth that are on an equal plane and authority as scripture. The Catholics believe there are. Some of their doctrines are based on these other things and not scripture. That is the issue.