The problem with "Sola Scrittura" (Leviticus, doctrine, churches)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi everyone,
IF we want to get honest about what we believe, what we don't believe, and what we don't understand at all, then we need to come to grips with the full implications of what we are saying in the first place.
IF we believe in "sola scrittura," then we are saying that what is in the Bible is reliable, and what is not in the Bible is not reliable. But as I see it, this is impossible. Here's why:
Let's look at a few interesting verses of scripture:
Quote:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
John 21.25
Quote:
And Jesus, when he came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.
Mark 6.34
Quote:
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
John 16.12
Quote:
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
Heb.5.11
Now, if we agree that these "many things" were actually said and done, yet they are not declared in the Scriptures, then it is impossible for them to exist. Because if they existed, but are not in the Bible, they are automatically rejected as "not Sola Scrittura" and therefore false or heretical.
Which means that ultimately, one either believes in other declarations and actions outside the scope of the Bible, or one must reject these things a priori.
Sola Scriptura is simply impossible.
Translations vary. Why? Because man injected doctrine and honest errors. So the translated Scriptura isn't Sola anymore. With that all studies based on these translations per definition can't be Sola Scriptura.
Obviously the original manuscripts come closer but they aren't suited for Sola Scriptura either.
They require interpretation which always injects reasoning from external sources. Languages can't be fully understood without understanding the culture. But the culture is at best partly described in the Bible. So man has to inject cultural understanding which never will be flawless and not Sola Scriptura.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,082,780 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWings
Sola Scriptura is simply impossible.
Translations vary. Why? Because man injected doctrine and honest errors. So the translated Scriptura isn't Sola anymore. With that all studies based on these translations per definition can't be Sola Scriptura.
Obviously the original manuscripts come closer but they aren't suited for Sola Scriptura either.
They require interpretation which always injects reasoning from external sources. Languages can't be fully understood without understanding the culture. But the culture is at best partly described in the Bible. So man has to inject cultural understanding which never will be flawless and not Sola Scriptura.
I fully agree...all you have to do is look at your own town and number of different churches,doctrines they believe/teach and fractures even among themselves and you can see proof positive of this.
Sola Scriptura is simply impossible.
Translations vary. Why? Because man injected doctrine and honest errors. So the translated Scriptura isn't Sola anymore. With that all studies based on these translations per definition can't be Sola Scriptura.
Obviously the original manuscripts come closer but they aren't suited for Sola Scriptura either.
They require interpretation which always injects reasoning from external sources. Languages can't be fully understood without understanding the culture. But the culture is at best partly described in the Bible. So man has to inject cultural understanding which never will be flawless and not Sola Scriptura.
Yes, of course, language and translations are an issue.
But my point is that, when the scripture indicates that "many other things" have been said or done, but they are not in scripture, then it opens up a "Pandora's Box" of questions.
So if you believe in Sola Scrittura, then you really don't. Because if you do, but that same scripture says that there are other truths outside those scriptures, then you are in a paradox.
I fully agree with your view Brian. I just wanted to add extra thoughts instead of just agreeing.
Quote:
But my point is that, when the scripture indicates that "many other things" have been said or done, but they are not in scripture, then it opens up a "Pandora's Box" of questions
And likely according to some those other things are not relevant or give a fantastic opportunity to inject doctrine by pointing to context found in Leviticus. (just an example)
The Jews in Jesus' time came as close to Sola Scriptura as possible. They fully understood their own language and culture. They writings were closer to the originals. But still they had disagreements among themselves and with Jesus. So even if we assume they used a Sola Scriptura approach they failed.
Anyway, my opinion is that injecting cultural understanding is way better than Sola Scriptura.
I believe in Sola Scriptura. If it's not in the bible I don't believe it. YES, I agree that there were "many other things", of course the world could not contain it all. BUT I also belive it comes down to where your faith is. I have faith that the scriptures are inspired word of God, and he wants us ALL to be saved. I have faith that whatever God wanted me to know is in the Holy Bible. Doubting there is more to know that wasn't written is having doubt that God didn't know what he was doing when he gave the inspiration to the writers. I believe if there IS something that wasn't written, God being the know all Father that he is, would not punish me for something I am unaware of because it's not in the bible.
Hi everyone,
IF we want to get honest about what we believe, what we don't believe, and what we don't understand at all, then we need to come to grips with the full implications of what we are saying in the first place.
IF we believe in "sola scrittura," then we are saying that what is in the Bible is reliable, and what is not in the Bible is not reliable. But as I see it, this is impossible. Here's why:
Let's look at a few interesting verses of scripture:
John 21.25
Mark 6.34
John 16.12
Heb.5.11
Now, if we agree that these "many things" were actually said and done, yet they are not declared in the Scriptures, then it is impossible for them to exist. Because if they existed, but are not in the Bible, they are automatically rejected as "not Sola Scrittura" and therefore false or heretical.
Which means that ultimately, one either believes in other declarations and actions outside the scope of the Bible, or one must reject these things a priori.
Peace.
brian
Bottom line is....why would we believe the so-called revelation that any Tom, Dick or Harry gets over that which we agree is inspired-- The Bible? I have no reason to believe God is speaking to you or anyone directly. Why would I want to believe you over the Bible?
Bottom line is....why would we believe the so-called revelation that any Tom, Dick or Harry gets over that which we agree is inspired-- The Bible? I have no reason to believe God is speaking to you or anyone directly. Why would I want to believe you over the Bible?
Since you are a trinitarian Christian, Vizio, I'm assuming you accept the 4th and 5th century creeds which established the doctrine of the Trinity. You may not repeat these as a part of your worship services, but you clearly believe they are an accurate description of the nature of God and the relationship between the members of the "Trinity." What was it about the Toms, Dicks, and Harrys who penned those Creeds that make you believe they were inspired?
Since you are a trinitarian Christian, Vizio, I'm assuming you accept the 4th and 5th century creeds which established the doctrine of the Trinity. You may not repeat these as a part of your worship services, but you clearly believe they are an accurate description of the nature of God and the relationship between the members of the "Trinity." What was it about the Toms, Dicks, and Harrys who penned those Creeds that make you believe they were inspired?
I can only reiterate my pleasure in seeing you posting again, Katz. Your openness and clarity of mind is refreshing among members of otherwise dogma-driven religions. Our disagreements pale in comparison.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
