Sola Scriptura

[David_McQueen]

What EXACTLY do people mean when they use this phrase?

[Dr. Shane]

It means our faith is based on Scripture alone. It means we demand a thus saith the Lord.

And it also means we can look down on other denominations that believe differently and consier ourselves supior. No.. wait a minute... maybe it doesn't mean that <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[bevin]

Interesting question:

It comes from a time when people were using force to make others behave like they believed the things. To gain some legitimacy for the force, they were quoting dead authorities (e.g. Augustine), and sometimes living ones (infallible popes).

Sola Scriptura is a rejection of this method of trying to legitimise a belief.

These days we go further. Most people reject the use of force for beliefs EVEN if those beliefs are Biblically solid. Instead we have developed a much smaller, but much finer grained, core set of beliefs that we are willing to use force to impose.

/Bevin

[cardw]

The phrase Sola Scriptura more often means Sola How I Read Scripture or Sola How My Church Reads Scripture. I don't see this presented as strong in the Bible itself. I see the word useful, which inplies pretty strongly that there are other sources of God's voice.

The problem I see with Sola Scripture is that it relies on our rational interpretation of words. In reality this is pretty inefficient and limits us to linear forms of understanding. It techinically is not spirituality, but rationalism using some acceptted reading of the Bible as the bottom line.

This form of "spirituality" has been the basis and justification of some pretty horrible things carried out by the Christian church. I find when we separate our spirit from our minds that these types of rationalizations occur. Rationalizations for violence, for the creation of groups of "others" and a whole host of things that happen when people are asleep.

Jesus said some pretty radical things and yet we have created a system of thought that negates much of what he said. In terms of priorities one has to simply look at what we debate about and what we give energy to.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

What EXACTLY do people mean when they use this phrase?

---

==================================

Well things mean different things for different generations. For our generation of people uttering this saying, this is what they really mean. "We have no confidence in the SOP manifested in the writings of Ellen White, so we will solely base all our doctrines on the bible alone". UNTIL they discover that the words found in the KJV are identical to EXACTLY what the SOP teaches verbatim. So then they start hedging a bit, trying to explain things away [with a various translations & such] that put a cramp on their lifestyle. Next they begin to manifest the same dislike for the bible that they did for the SOP. So the bottom line is to become a atheist like the harlot church has plans for all her members. But there is ALWAYS a solution, why not just do what God said originally and stop your squirming???

[Gregory Matthews]

Ed, this generation does not know EGW well enought to be able to say that.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Ed, this generation does not know EGW well enought to be able to say that.

---

Greg you are probally right on this one.While all this class needs to do is but "to taste and see that the Lord is good".

[Kevin H]

There are two schools of thought on this phrase: The original was "The Bible and the Bible only as the Rule of faith and duty" which would mean that our teachings need to be built on the Bible, and would include learning as much about the Bible as we can, it's linguistic and historical contexts etc. and modifying our beliefs as we learn more. Also we see how Bible writers expland on earlier writers, we look at how truth progresses and develops thus see guidelines on how we are progressing with and developing truth. In this view the idea of controdictions with in the Bible is not a big consern as they teach us different aspects about God and have lessons for us. For example for a major conflict in the Bible is whether church government should be a strong general conference or congragational. Some Bible writers vigerously supported one while others supported the other. But as we study these two groups we find that both forms of government have their strong and weak points, and we find that it is Biblical to do our best with what ever form of church government we have and to be critical of their weakpoints and be willing to modify and expand on Biblical principles.

Others use the phrase "Sola Scruptura" as needing a key text for what ever they believe, and to exclude everything else. They can run into problems of say with church government, they might notice the texts that support the one type of church government, say the Bible teaches this type of church government, therefore you need to follow this type of church government and not the other one, and so we have churches who sees the strong General Conference texts, and other churches who see the congragational texts and want to strongly defend one or the other view as "THE BIBLICAL VIEW"

The difference is: Do you want to carefully use methods of measurments as you build your house, to make sure you are building precisely or do you insist of having your house built entirely out of yardsticks.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

UNTIL they discover that the words found in the KJV are identical to EXACTLY what the SOP teaches verbatim.

---

Sometimes no, sometimes yes, sometimes maybe.

For instance -

there is Biblical support for the dead-are-unconscious

there is no Biblical support for vegetarianism

there is no Biblical support, even in the KJV, for 1844

the Bible is rather unclear on drinking alcoholic beverages

/Bevin

[Kevin H]

Bevin, excellent post from July 20. As for Jul 22, I think you are too much focused into what you think the doctrine of the investigative judgement should be to not understand what the Bible actually teaches on that point (and this is not saying that all our traditions are correct.)

Vegetarianism is NOT a doctrine but an application of two doctrines: wanting to prosper and be in good health, and to try to develope an attitude of good will to the world around us including being kinder to the anamals and not use them to worship our stomach god.

Alochol, looking for a key text to prove a consistant "Thus saith the Lord" one way or another is hard, but you can still see the principle of "Stay as far away as sencibly possible" where the times and places you could drink were serverely limited and it was watered down so it did little more than work than to kill the germs and make water drinkable.

[Dr. Shane]

Adventists tend to have more of an independant mindset. They tend to want to only follow Scripture and not a man's interpretation of it. I have always thought the job of an SDA pastor has to be harder than his peers of other denominations. Many in other denominations wouldn't think of challenging their pastor while the Adventist pastor is continuously challenged.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Ed White said:

==================================

Well things mean different things for different generations. For our generation of people uttering this saying, this is what they really mean. "We have no confidence in the SOP manifested in the writings of Ellen White, so we will solely base all our doctrines on the bible alone". UNTIL they discover that the words found in the KJV are identical to EXACTLY what the SOP teaches verbatim. So then they start hedging a bit, trying to explain things away [with a various translations & such] that put a cramp on their lifestyle. Next they begin to manifest the same dislike for the bible that they did for the SOP. So the bottom line is to become a atheist like the harlot church has plans for all her members. But there is ALWAYS a solution, why not just do what God said originally and stop your squirming???

---

I see a problem with our definition with the latin mantra "sola scriptura", and Ed you bring to light part of the issue. Does sola scriptura hinder the ability of God to work out His purposes in His people? Does sola scriptura prevent the constant unfolding of truth? Only if the people use it to shut out the progress of light. It has been my experience also, that people use sola scriptura as a shield against the SOP. If it isnt in my Bible, it is only optional truth. Therefore the person rejecting the SOP can commend themselves on being a real Christian because they have rejected the SOP in favor of the Bible. This is why there is an increasing schism between the Alden Thompson, inspiration optional view of Ellen White folks and the folks who say its all inspired or it aint inspired at all. But we choose to keep the unclean and hateful birds in their cages in high places.

[Planey]

Having read much of what Alden Thompson has written about inspiration I feel you have summarised his position very inaccurately by suggesting he had an "inspiration optional view of Ellen White".

Graeme

[wicklunds]

You should take some of his classes and see for yourself then. Just make sure there are no important people in the class at the time so you will not get a diluted version of his views.

[Bravus]

Planey is an important person!

[wicklunds]

Good point!! Maybe it wouldn't work in your case then Planey. One brief comment from Ellen White on the subject should clear things up...

Perils of Dissecting Inspired Messages

Some sit in judgment on the Scriptures, declaring that this or that passage is not inspired, because it does not strike their minds favorably. They cannot harmonize it with their ideas of philosophy and science, "falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20). Others for different reasons question portions of the Word of God. Thus many walk blindly where the enemy prepares the way. Now, it is not the province of any man to pronounce sentence upon the Scriptures, to judge or condemn any portion of God's Word. When one presumes to do this, Satan will create an atmosphere for him to breathe which will dwarf spiritual growth. When a man feels so very wise that he dares to dissect God's Word, his wisdom is, with God, counted foolishness. When he knows more, he will feel that he has everything to learn. And his very first lesson is to become teachable. "Learn of me," says the Great Teacher; "for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matt. 11:29). {1SM 42.3}

You who have been educating yourselves and others in a spirit of criticism and accusing, remember that you are imitating the example of Satan. When it suits your purpose, you treat the Testimonies as if you believed them, quoting from them to strengthen any statement you wish to have prevail. But how is it when light is given to correct your errors? Do you then accept the light? When the Testimonies speak contrary to your ideas, you treat them very lightly. {1SM 42.4}

And this is what I see AT (and others who accept his views) doing with inspiration.

Dennis

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

When it suits your purpose, you treat the Testimonies as if you believed them, quoting from them to strengthen any statement you wish to have prevail. But how is it when light is given to correct your errors? Do you then accept the light? When the Testimonies speak contrary to your ideas, you treat them very lightly. {1SM 42.4}

Dennis

---

Very balanced and enlightened thinking, considering the state of all humankind at this moment of time.

[:"red"] "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." [/] Romans 3:19 KJV

And if you don't think your under the Law, just try walking lawless for a day and please post your results on CA.

Keep the faith!

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry, but the quote you used is the exact same one I use to support things such as what Alden Thompson is teaching.

[cardw]

What is difficult in the whole discussion of sola scriptura is that most Christians ignore how the books of the Bible were put together. Particularly the New Testament. Very few know the philosophical underpinnings of why certain gospels were included. Most of the early church fathers had philosophies based on Plato. Most ignore or don't know what methods were used to influence the formations of doctrine and that the books of the Bible were not chosen because of historical accuracy or closeness to Jesus' teachings, but because they supported one doctrine or another.

As Adventists we have a history of being rather critical of Catholicism and yet we ignore that Catholic doctrine determined how the Bible was translated and its early formers chose what to be included in the Bible.

We talk as if God has micro-managed the formation of scripture and we have people quoting scripture as if it, rather than the truth it points to, has the power to enlighten and instruct. Much of what I observe is closer to idol worship of the Bible. It is the placing of the symbol over the reality. It is the worship of the finger pointing rather than what its pointing at.

Language and writing are a fairly recent addition to the whole of culture. It has been elevated because of the elevation of rationalism. Rationalism is not what Jesus taught and yet we emphasize these complex systems of belief and theology as being so important.

I read Jesus trying to awaken us to living consciously with our community. Teaching us to use our hearts as a way of seeing the world through compassion rather than cold rationalism.

So much of what I read discussed here is dead. The life has been removed. I don't say this because I'm trying to be critical, but because its painful. The basis of most practiced Christian belief is fear and shame. It simply astounds me that Christians can't see it. One simply has to read most of the dialog in, not only this discussion board, but in most Christian forums.

I attribute much of this to a literal reading of scripture and the fundamentalist movements in all denominations. There is largely a loss of the recognition of the mystery of God. It becomes substituted with some form of authoritarian rationalism that calls itself true spirituality when it is simply some type of education and in its worse forms manipulation through shame and fear.

One has to simply read methods promoted by early evangelists in this country, such as Charles Finney. One could accuse this form of revival of creating the very disease it offers the cure for.

[bevin]

Cardw - you and I are in very close agreement on this.

Deep and detailed arguments based on the exact phrasing of texts in the KJV is the modern equivalent of the Pharisee's - especially when it leads to exact fine-grained life-style issues. It is wrong because you can't do exact measurements with blurry rulers - and because long lines of arguments based on uncertain bases do not lead to exact conclusions.

The Bible is there to teach us about God's involvement with His people and the world in the past.

We need to be involved with God and the world around us today.

My only gibble is a possible ambiguity around Jesus and rationality. I think Jesus was intensely rational - but He did not base His rationality on an overly literal and unquestioning acceptance of ancient and modern writings.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Much of what I observe is closer to idol worship of the Bible.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Sometimes one just has to wrap enough duct tape around their head to make sure it doesn't explode <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[cardw]

Quote:

---

My only gibble is a possible ambiguity around Jesus and rationality. I think Jesus was intensely rational - but He did not base His rationality on an overly literal and unquestioning acceptance of ancient and modern writings.

---

I would agree that Jesus used reason to get his points across, but this, to me, is quite different than rationalism, which is the belief that truth can exist within a series of binary (true and false) statements within a system of logic.

Love is not able to be explained on a rational basis alone, though Love may do many rational things. There are not only deep mysteries to be explored in regards to God, there are deep mysteries about even our own natures.

Proof texts, the idea of sola scriptura, or inerrancy are based on the idea that language and its explanations can contain all the answers. This is quite easily demonstrated to be a simplification of reality and God.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

Sometimes one just has to wrap enough duct tape around their head to make sure it doesn't explode

---

Am I supposed to know what this means?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

cardw said:

Love is not able to be explained on a rational basis alone,

This is quite easily demonstrated to be a simplification of reality and God.

---

And thus in your rational for disbelieving the Word, the reason the world is in the condition it is in, is a result of looking for answers from the Holy Scripture, which Jesus said the Pharisees read.

Then Jesus went on to say the Scriptures were a testimony of Him, which would have to have been the Old Testament since the New testament was not yet written.

[:"red"] "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" [/] John 5:39 KJV

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" John 5:39 KJV

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What? Are you some kind of idol worshipper? Making the Scriptures into an idol. Yea, I know your kind. I bet next you are going to claim Jesus made Scriptures into an idol. You will do anything to defend your precious Bible, won't you? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />