Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

15

As I understand it, the term Sola Scriptura isn't about personal interpretation so much as it refers to a closed canon, the notion that the Bible is complete and contain all necessary knowledge for salvation, and that no other words from any other source can legitimately be added to it and hold canonical status alongside the Bible. As for its basis, there ...


12

The origin of 'sola scriptura' as a formal term comes from the Reformation, and has only an a posteriori justification in the scriptural text. It may mean any of the following: Scripture is the only source for Christian teaching, morality, etc Scripture is the only real 'words of God' Christians do not need outside sources to interpret scripture Luther ...


10

I will answer, because (as you may have noticed from my other answers) I'm about as "Sola Scriptura" as they come. No. Basically, we believe that Scripture was given by God as the standard for His people to use in determining truth. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ...


10

I do not view Sola Scriptura as just personal interpretation. I believe there are a lot of people smarter than me that can teach me a lot about the Bible's teachings. Another part of Sola Scriptura is that scripture alone is sufficient for giving you the wisdom you need for salvation (faith in Christ). I would reference 2 Timothy 3:15 for this: and ...


9

The teachings of the Scripture of the time of Jesus (the Torah) was the only Scripture that they had then. All other teachings, by Jesus and by His disciples, were orally transmitted. The saints of the Church hadn't even started to write things down, compiling the Gospel accounts as we know it, until years after Jesus' death, when they realized that He ...


9

Um... The Bible is the basis for Sola Scriptura. That's sorta the point. Your definition (that no assistance can be used in interpreting what is written) seems a bit Humpty Dumptyish. Although I don't doubt some do follow such practices, it is certainly not commonplace... ...Indeed, Acts tells us of Philip the Evangelist offering assistance, and then ...


9

We do not deny the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher. We believe that the Holy Spirit does serve to teach us, and to guide us. The Holy Spirit also serves to convict sinners that they may come to repentance. From the article you linked to: Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are ...


7

It is true that sola scriptura is in some sense a reactionary doctrine. It's largely set against extra-Biblical revelation, rather than "wrongly" interpreting the Bible itself. In itself, a sola scriptura position does not necessarily oppose an allegorical or anagogical meaning, though it would resist interpreting an otherwise historical-looking passage in ...


7

First off, your basic premise is spot on. As a lifelong evangelical, my biggest gripe with evangelicalism is that we either dismiss or declare heretical anything that is based on "Tradition," ignoring the fact that all readers of Scripture do so with a tradition in mind. Any theological framework (rapture? trinity? the words don't appear in Scripture!) ...


7

I've never heard the term 'Bible Christian' before, but I'll roll with this one. It's a really interesting question. Because of the generally vague nature of the question I don't think it's fair to answer on behalf of anybody but myself and a handful of others that I know personal. Lets start with a couple statements of what I believe: I do believe in Sola ...


7

The answer is simply: No. One way to prove it, is to take the verse where Jesus says: "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16) That means, that whatever the apostles say, is Jesus' teaching. Then we can take Paul's words to the Thessalonians in chapter 2 verse ...


6

The idea of Sola Scriptura is that we base our beliefs off of scripture alone. I wouldn't say it's talking about how we interpret the Bible versus where we get our understanding about God from. I don't think it is saying it is bad to be taught the correct interpretation by those who have spent their time studying the scriptures. But at the same time, I ...


6

The basis is that you run into a self-referentiality problem trying to figure out what the Bible says about itself. There was no such thing as "the Bible" when it was being written. Not even the concept of "writing the Bible" existed, the way we think of writing books today, because the Bible isn't a book; it's a collection of several individual books. ...


5

I don't believe there is a problem with paraphrasing the Bible in conversational, or even teaching use. The important thing is that what is being paraphrased can be verified against the Bible. A lot of a pastor's message is likely to be paraphrasing or expounding on a Bible verse. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it is being verified against ...


4

What you’re describing is the basic attitude of many Protestant churches and particularly the reformers and Puritans. However many of these would not think your ‘Word of Faith’ movement has a similar sincere attitude. For example her is a quote from John Owen, a leading Calvinist in the 17th century. Those who are called by the state of their flocks to ...


4

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness Therefore the Bible is not used as the sole source of knowledge but rather as the rule by which other sources (including common sense and Church tradition) are judged. So if someone in your church (or here) says, "God says X" ...


4

It's impossible to say that all people of any one group believe a specific thing or feel a specific way. Any question like this will find at least one person that identifies themselves as a member of a group but doesn't follow a given aspect of that group. So, in that sense... No, not all Sola Scriptura believers feel that paraphrasing is bad. "Real ...


4

Whatever we feel, Christians shouldn't find paraphrases of the Bible distasteful, as long as they are accurate paraphrases. Christianity is not a text-based religion. Islam believes that the Quran was literally dictated by God in Arabic, and the actual text is sacred. Christianity believes that the Bible was 'inspired' by God, but written down by the human ...


3

It's a heresy (i.e. a hetrodox teaching condemned by the Catholic Church), to change from not believing in it, to believing in it would make you a heretic. (not an argument, but a very important reason for not believing) The Bible is the complete source of public revelation, but we are permitted to believe private revelation, which has the approval of a ...


3

I'm not really sure that's what Christians do. I'm a non-denominational Christian myself, and while I do believe in a direct and personal relationship with God, I do not believe I should use my own personal interpretation of the Bible as my sole source of foundational information upon which to base my faith. I am a strong believer in listening to your ...


3

I think the doctrine you're looking for is "Priesthood of all believers". It is derived from Martin Luther's understanding of 1 Peter 2:9. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Luther, and ...


3

There is no Biblical basis for either. According to tradition, Peter requested upside-down crucifixion because he didn't feel worthy of the same execution as Jesus, but this is not in the Bible. The upside-down cross as demonic is also not in the Bible, although the symbolism is clear.


2

Although sola-scriptura principle sets up the boundaries as to which books should be considered as Scriptures and which books should not, the essence of this principle is not about books, but rather about the ideas that those books contain and whether or not the knowledge of and believing in those ideas is sufficient for humans to have eternal life, which is ...


2

Your question is very valid, and I sincerely wish more of my "fellow Protestants" understood what I am about to explain. The point of the Reformation was not to drive each individual Christian to interpret the Bible for themselves! It is abundantly clear from Luther's writings that this was not his goal, but for some strange reason, this has become a ...


2

Two Questions You pose and interesting question, "Where did the idea come from that everyone can interpret the bible for themselves?" An equally valid question is, "Where did the idea come from that any believer cannot interpret the Bible for himself? Every believer has the Spirit of God dwelling within him (1 Corinthians 6:19), so why would that ...


2

The term sola scriptura is a reference to the ultimate authoritative reference used. It does not say anything about the validity or invalidity of any particular statement or the general use of language. The very people who during the Protestant Reformation (re)started insisting on the use of Scripture as the ultimate authority in all matters of doctrine also ...


2

While it is impossible to avoid paraphrasing something which is translated, when I was more of a "Bible Christian" (first 21 years of my life I was an Evangelical attending a PCUSA church), paraphrasing the Bible was something which was common and often indistinguishable from biblical allusion, and neither was considered a bad thing. If I recall correctly ...


2

I was flipping through Christianity For Dummies the other day, and I noticed that the author of the book liked to use the term "biblical Christianity," which then made me suspicious about his usage of the term. He claimed that he would write from a neutral perspective and admitted that he came from an "evangelical Protestant" background, but after reading a ...


1

No, paraphrasing the Bible for conversational use would not make Sola Scriptura folks cringe. (There are always exceptions, but in general you should be fine.) Forbidding paraphrases wouldn't make a lot of sense. Everyone paraphrases Scripture - even the writers of the New Testament did this. (example) In fact, every Bible translation out there is ...


1

As one who grew up in a "Bible Church," I can answer from my own experience here. Paraphrases are typically touted as wonderful aids to devotional reading, but are never used for doctrinal discussion. In other words, The Living Bible (or nowadays, the much, much better New Living Translation), would be on the bedstand, but never the pulpit. The few ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible