There is something healthy about returning to one’s roots. When it comes to evangelical Christianity, its roots are found in the soil of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation.

Scripture Alone

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scripture Alone


  • #2
    Interesting history. Augustine some ten plus centuries earlier than Luther had stated:

    I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.
    Awesome, when in doubt, doubt yourself!

    What also interested me was the conclusion of the video. The Catholic church confronted Luther's advance to give the Laymen the Scriptures, by which the Catholic church suggested that all kinds of inequities would occur. Luther, and later Reformers, however, knew that if that was the case, that if inequities and distortions occurred then so be it. Every Christian has the right to interpret it for themselves, but no Christian has the right to misinterpret it or distort it to their own whims or prejudices. Luther knew that the clear message is so important that they should take the risks.

    God bless,
    William
    Comment>

    • #3
      That there is some good teaching.

      Every church that isn't Scripture Alone is a cult cut off from the universal church. Cults are proudly cut off, claiming the rest of Christendom is in error.

      Sproul also says something I've said before. If he finds he can't agree with the his church's doctrine, it's his study to withdraw peacefully. Cultish people, like Liberals and Pentecostals, don't hold that attitude. They think it's their duty to hijack churches.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
        Sproul also says something I've said before. If he finds he can't agree with the his church's doctrine, it's his study to withdraw peacefully. Cultish people, like Liberals and Pentecostals, don't hold that attitude. They think it's their duty to hijack churches.
        While I personally hate conflict and have withdrawn quietly over a matter of conscience serious enough to be worth breaking fellowship ...
        ... I don't seem to remember that being either Paul or John's preferred method of dealing with churches that were struggling with bad doctrine. :)
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by atpollard View Post
          While I personally hate conflict and have withdrawn quietly over a matter of conscience serious enough to be worth breaking fellowship ...
          ... I don't seem to remember that being either Paul or John's preferred method of dealing with churches that were struggling with bad doctrine. :)
          I'm thinking of 1 Corinthians 3:1-4:

          3 But I, brothers,[a] could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?
          I agree with you to which degree bad doctrine may affect a church and its congregants. I can't picture John or Paul sitting idly by while a church has fallen into apostasy. We know John's Epistle deals with certain false evangelist, and instructs us not to give hospitality to such people. I believe Paul sets an example in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, after pause, to refrain from, or to remain silent concerning the mysteries of the deep. I think in some ways that there is a certain wisdom found in Scripture, such silence on topics of the occult, hell, etc., we'd be wise to follow the example of Scripture and remain silent when the Scriptures themselves are silent. Not diving into or acquiring first hand knowledge or experience for ourselves, and not speculating to the point of causing divisions and contentions.

          God bless,
          William
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by atpollard View Post
            While I personally hate conflict and have withdrawn quietly over a matter of conscience serious enough to be worth breaking fellowship ...
            ... I don't seem to remember that being either Paul or John's preferred method of dealing with churches that were struggling with bad doctrine.
            If your church takes a turn for the worse, by all means speak up. It's your duty. Trying to preserve a church is the opposite of hijacking a church. Also, the churches Paul wrote to respected the authority of Paul and Paul was trying to preserve them, not change them. I suppose Paul did try to change Synagogues, but he was Paul and he was acting under direct authority of God. We wouldn't talk into a Synagogue and preach Jesus .

            It's wrong for a stealth Pentecostal to take a job as pastor at a Baptist church and then start teaching Pentecostalism, just like I wouldn't join a Catholic Church and then tell them to stop worshiping Mary. I'll tell them I reject their Marian doctrine, but I'll do it from outside. Or, if your a member of a Catholic Church and you one morning conclude that you've been practicing idolatry, leave.
            Comment>

            • #7
              As a Lutheran, of course I passionately embrace the practice called "The Rule of Scripture" (what Luther and later Calvin called "Sola Scriptura")

              What I reject is a LOT of twisting and extensions of it that a LOT of Protestants call and lump into Sola Scriptura (sometimes, some Lutherans, too). I'm also uncomfortable with the common practice of lumping this "sola" with the others (Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide - Soli Deo Gloria), the later all have to do with justitication (narrow) whereas Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine but praxis and concerns an ENTIRELY different issue: epistemology. By lumping it with the other four (as Lutherans too are apt to do) we give the false testimony that somehow, using Scripture as the Rule in epistemology is ALSO a part of justification (narrow).


              Of course, the "problem" is that while this practice embraces the full accountability of all parties in the dispute (the reason why the RCC rejects this practice - NOT because of the authority of Scripture BUT because it mandates the RCC be fully accountable), and while it gives to us a very sound and common rule, it still leaves out the third mandated part: Arbitration. With the end of Ecumenical Councils (800 AD if not well before), there is no decisive and final arbitration to state whether a position "measures up" to the "measuring stick" and thus conclude the debate. Each individual denomination MAY have such a means WITHIN the individual denomination (which may mandate some teacher is kicked out of the denomination, some position repudiated by the denomination) none of this extends beyond the denomination. Positions don't get eliminated because they have been arbitrated as wrong, it just means a new denomination is born and the error continues among Christians..... To ME, this doesn't mean steps one (accountability) and two (a common rule) are to be dismissed as irrelevant, it simply means we need to work together in hopes of restoring some common arbitation.



              Thank you.


              Pax Christi


              - Josiah
              Comment>
              Working...
              X
              Articles - News - SiteMap