Why Do Protestants Believe In The Trinity?

[Circle_Master]

So, if one cannot "interpret" the Trinity from the Bible on their own, then who told them.  And then the question should be asked, who told them.  And so on.

Aye, everyone should understand how blatant it is in Scripture.

Try and find the root of who was the first to rightly interpret the doctrine of the Trinity.

Betchya it's the Catholic Church.

And if they got that one right...

A statement like that of course doesn't help anything because the Catholic Church has changed over time. What defines it as the same church as the one from the 1st century church? You say because the ordination has passed down through it, and even that is controversial as the east-west schism had ordained priests on both sides, and even the protestant splits had ordained priests within them. If the ordination of apostolic authority is not what makes the Catholic Church what it is today, then what is it? What else would define the Catholic Church as "Christ's Church?"

And here are a few verses

The Holy Spirit is God

Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18

Jesus Christ is God

Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18; John 1:1; John 1:18; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20

The Father is God

John 6:27; 80,000,000 other verses - this one is a nobrainer.

God is one

Dt 6:4; 1 John 5:20; 7000 times God is refered to as singular in Old Testament

If you want a more complete article check out either

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bod...an-trinity.html

-or-

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html

(I'll add this link as well http://www.onlinetrinity.com/ - an entire site devoted to the trinity)

Of course, that is if you are actually interested and not just asking thinking that protestants are stupid and actually have no reason for believing in the Trinity.

Edited February 14, 2004 by Circle_Master

[Circle_Master]

miss me?

sorry, i'll probably be disappearing again. I have no life. school, work, sleep, work, school, work, sleep, etc. and once in a while I find time for a meal.

[jasJis]

Yes! We did miss you! You've been mentioned in kind terms by us.

And I mean that I missed you sincerely, because I believe that sometimes you really want to be here to learn, teach, and grow with us in Grace. (I don't want you to have doubts because I was certainly not welcoming to "you-know-who")

[Circle_Master]

thanks JisJas, I criticize many other non-Catholics at my school weekly for misrepresenting Catholic doctrines on semantic and understanding issues. You would be proud of me! ;)

[cmotherofpirl]

Anytime you defend truth we are proud of you.

And yes you have been missed. :)

[Brother Adam]

The point still remains that the Trinity is not taught directly or indirectly in scripture- you must interpret this doctrine from the scriptures.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Aye, everyone should understand how blatant it is in Scripture.

A statement like that of course doesn't help anything because the Catholic Church has changed over time. What defines it as the same church as the one from the 1st century church? You say because the ordination has passed down through it, and even that is controversial as the east-west schism had ordained priests on both sides, and even the protestant splits had ordained priests within them. If the ordination of apostolic authority is not what makes the Catholic Church what it is today, then what is it? What else would define the Catholic Church as "Christ's Church?"

And here are a few verses

The Holy Spirit is God

Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18

Jesus Christ is God

Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18; John 1:1; John 1:18; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20

The Father is God

John 6:27; 80,000,000 other verses - this one is a nobrainer.

God is one

Dt 6:4; 1 John 5:20; 7000 times God is refered to as singular in Old Testament

If you want a more complete article check out either

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bod...an-trinity.html

-or-

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html

(I'll add this link as well http://www.onlinetrinity.com/ - an entire site devoted to the trinity)

Of course, that is if you are actually interested and not just asking thinking that protestants are stupid and actually have no reason for believing in the Trinity.

Circle! You're back! Woohoo!

Anyway, about the Trinity, I would agree that the scriptural evidence is highly in favor of this doctrine, but still the fact remains that the formal concept of the Trinity is not explicit in the Scriptures nor is the word Trinity a scriptural term. The formal concept and term are a part of Tradition that survived in protestantism (although there certainly are bible-only christians who reject the doctrine altogether or have deviant understandings of it). The defenders of heresies such as arianism and sabellianism always used Scripture to defend their doctrines and claimed that this was in fact what Scripture says. And clearly the reason the protestant tradition for the most part accepts the doctrine is because the reformers did not start with the Bible alone. They started out with Catholic Tradition and more or less went through the old pick and choose routine. Protestants are not without a tradition that informs their hermeneutic, this is the point. Protestantism is not Bible-only in the sense of starting out with no preconcieved doctrines or ideas and just figuring out what Christianity is from an objective reading of the Sacred Scriptures.

This is a silly idea anyway since the Bible is not, and has never been intended as a blue-print for Christianity divorced from Tradition or the life of the Church Christ instituted. The Jews were Jews first of all because they belonged to the Jewish community, the Bible (OT) was the main authoritative collection of books representing their tradition, it was the heart and soul of their religion but it wasn't the totality of their religion by any means. And the concept of a lone Jew figuring out Judaism for himself from the OT without reference to the historical Jewish community is completely foreign. This is true also for fulfilled Judaism in the Church Christ established.

Another tough call for protesants who want to claim that they are strictly "bible-only" is the fact of Sunday worship. Where is that in the Bible? The Bible says that the Sabbath is the seventh day, namely Saturday. Why do protestants worship on Sunday? Maybe groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists are more bible-only, but hey, they still have quite a few extra-biblical protestant traditions even if they won't admit it, and you'll have to get used to the teachings of William Miller and Ellen Gould White. And you'll have to follow some dietary restrictions based on the mosaic law and forget about hell because the damned are in fact anihilated by the teachings of this sects founders.

And about your last statement, it seems to reflect a lack of clarity. For one the Orthodox Churches are in schism, but they still have the true faith. And there is a degree of unity between the East and West to this day. And the protestant splits that had not gone totally off the deep end (valid Holy Order, Sacraments, etc) could also be said to have the Apostolic Faith and be a schism (such as the Anglicans), at least in the early days. These churches have deviated more and more as time has gone. But there is one Church of Jesus Christ and it is the Catholic Church. This is the Church is which the fullness of the Faith resides. The further an ecclesial body gets from this Church the further it gets from the true faith.

And you're basically right about the early Church. It is the apostolic succession and in a unique way the office of the Pope that safeguards the Church's unity of faith. This is based on Christ's promises and the action of the Holy Spirit. And of course doctrine develops. The whole substance of the faith existed in the first century but things develop and change. The essence does not change.

Even in the earliest centuries you have differences from culture to culture and region to region. But they were all one Catholic and Apostolic Church. This unity was professed on the basis of being united through the hierarchy of Bishops, unity with the Pope is the fullest kind of unity in the Church. The Eastern Churches do not deny this, they believe in Papal supremacy (they'd better, it's part of their Tradition). The schism has many factors and will be healed. It does not take away from the fact that the unity of Christ's Church is now, and has always been centered on the Church's authoritative hierarchy.

If a Christian from the first centuries were to be transported into our day he would look for the Church of the Apostles, he would look for the successors of the Apostles. He would naturally consider christian groups that were not in union with the authoritative hierarchy to be heretical sects.

Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

Tertullian

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

"[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood" (ibid., 21).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21).

Pope Clement I

"Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults" (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80]).

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

 

Origen

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Augustine

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

[Aloysius]

thanks JisJas, I criticize many other non-Catholics at my school weekly for misrepresenting Catholic doctrines on semantic and understanding issues. You would be proud of me!

hmmm do we have a brother adam jr. forming in our midst? :P

[Laudate_Dominum]

hmmm do we have a brother adam jr. forming in our midst?

The more the merrier! I never knew protestants and catholics could actually get along while having discussions on religion until I met Brother Adam.

;)

[IcePrincessKRS]

The more the merrier! I never knew protestants and catholics could actually get along while having discussions on religion until I met Brother Adam.

I never knew a Protestant who sincerely tried to leard what Catholics believe and properly present that to his non-Catholic friends and family, etc., even if he didn't agree with it until I met Adam! :)

[Brother Adam]

awww....shucks :sadder:

[Circle_Master]

This is a silly idea anyway since the Bible is not, and has never been intended as a blue-print for Christianity divorced from Tradition or the life of the Church Christ instituted. The Jews were Jews first of all because they belonged to the Jewish community, the Bible (OT) was the main authoritative collection of books representing their tradition, it was the heart and soul of their religion but it wasn't the totality of their religion by any means. And the concept of a lone Jew figuring out Judaism for himself from the OT without reference to the historical Jewish community is completely foreign. This is true also for fulfilled Judaism in the Church Christ established.

I would agree with that except if you notice in much of the gospels Jesus says 'you have heard it said.... but I say to you....' redefining what their 'tradition' was. And he always went back to 'it is written', and not 'it is said... and it is true...'. While the concept of a lone Jew figuring out Judaism for himself is truly impossible, I agree completely a lone Christian today with Scriptures will never understand the bible for what it is. You misrepresent the protestant hermeneutics to say otherwise.

Another tough call for protesants who want to claim that they are strictly "bible-only" is the fact of Sunday worship. Where is that in the Bible? The Bible says that the Sabbath is the seventh day, namely Saturday. Why do protestants worship on Sunday? Maybe groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists are more bible-only, but hey, they still have quite a few extra-biblical protestant traditions even if they won't admit it, and you'll have to get used to the teachings of William Miller and Ellen Gould White. And you'll have to follow some dietary restrictions based on the mosaic law and forget about hell because the damned are in fact anihilated by the teachings of this sects founders.

Bible only that almost all educated protestants use is Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. Sola uses Church History, it uses secular History, it uses grammer, linguistics, theology previously given, etc. So when you say Bible-only, remember that we study based on the entire scope of history to test and rest and figure out what the words mean. The bible is always the ultimate authority, but what is a figure of speech, what isn't, what is an idiom, what isn't, what is this prophecy referring to, what it isn't, etc. can be severely enlightened from research. The trinity it itself is rather clear and takes some twisted or incorrect grammer usage (such as Mormon's) and just that the very early church all spoke it without consideration shows it was an understood thought of the time. All of this research works to look at how the mosaic law does apply today - I could recommend 'Five views on the Law' with contributions by L. Moo and Walter Kaiser, and some others. Rather decent work and interesting to read. There are many students of the Old Testament to understand our role today in response to what has been previously revealed. Catholic Scholars do much of the same as well, I don't see as much research there in this area though, not sure why. As far as I know nothing of the antithesis of the Law has been made dogmatic.

[Jake Huether]

Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura

Can someone verify that there is an actual "solo scriptura". First of all, I've never heard of "solo" Scritpura. And I know that these words are Latin. But if they are anything like spanish, then there wouldn't be a "solo" Scriptura, since the noun is feminine, then it would have to be "sola". Essentially Solo and Sola mean the same exact thing then in context (meaning only).

Is this one more point that Protestants will disagree on. I'm not taking a jab, Circle. I'm just curious. Because I've honestly never heard even a protestant bring this point up: the difference between solo and sola.

According to your definition then of Sola Scriptura, you would almost HAVE to be Catholic. Because all our Doctrines and Dogmas are Historically, etc., etc., backed up.

And you mentioned that the Church has changed. And I wanted to ask you how so? I'v done a bit of studying over the years and have never found a Catholic Teaching on Faith and Morals that has changed. No doctrine has changed. I can't find it. Indeed, disciplines have changed. But that is expected, as disciplines have nothing do do with doctrine or Teaching.

[Jake Huether]

I was tipped off about a link that helped me understand the difference between sola and solo scriptura.

Although, technically speaking, solo and sola mean the same thing, it appears that a certain someone "coined" the term "solo" in order to differentiate it from the "true" teaching of sola scriptura.

In any case... I would like to post parts of this website and add a few comments. Hopefully I will be able to learn more about this subject:

From: http://www.visionforumministries.org/secti...f_scripture.asp

This message is an expansion of the NCFIC Confession Article I "Scripture is Sufficient," which states:

We affirm that our all-wise God has revealed Himself and His will in a completed revelation -- the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments -- which is fully adequate in both content and clarity for "everything pertaining to life (salvation) and godliness (sanctification)" including the ordering of the church and the family (2 Pet. 1:3-4; 1 Tim. 3:15).

It is interesting that there are no Scriptural passages deliniating which letters and writings were to be chosen. Neither does it give the number 66 as the final sum of those writings. So, now, I'm wondering, once the Apostles died, where was the written Scripture that gave the early Church the knowledge of which writings were Scripture??

In recent history, the Bible has faced attack both from without and from within. It is no surprise, of course, that the unbelieving world would assault God's Word in an effort to destroy the God who holds them accountable. It is likewise understandable that the cults -- Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, etc. -- would add to, subtract from, and cleverly twist the Scriptures to fashion a God of their own making. But how does the church -- even the most conservative and faithful -- do violence to Scripture and thus bring a famine in the land for God's Word?

But didn't the father of Protestantism also subtract books?? How do they justify the change in books from before the 1500's to after??

Make no mistake: the ultimate matter in question is the authority of Scripture -- and Scripture's God -- over our life and our opinions. Is there an authoritative God who guides and governs His creatures with an authoritative standard, or are we left to our own imaginations and devices? Does the Bible really speak with authority about how to order our families, how to rear our children, how to conduct church, and a host of other issues including abortion, euthanasia, evolution, homosexuality, bioethics, divorce, politics, and even debt? If so, then where God speaks, it is man's duty to hear and to obey.

Great Question!

Dr. John MacArthur's Sufficiency of Scripture lectures warn that the Evangelical (and Fundamental and Reformed) churches have been duped into believing that marketing techniques are required to build the church, entertainment is needed to communicate the Gospel, psychology is essential to solve people's problems, and social theory must redefine the role of women and homosexuals in the church. After all, the Bible was written thousands of years ago during the time of man's ignorance of modern science and thought. Most pastors would deny the charge that they don't really believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. But as Vision Forum president Doug Phillips insightfully explains, "Most Christians today live as practical humanists."

So true!

The Problem -- autonomy

As stated above, the ultimate issue in question is the authority of the Bible over our lives. Who is in charge? Who gets the final word? And the way that men (even saved but sinful men) avoid God's authority is through autonomy: a self-determination that pursues self-sufficiency producing self-rule. It may not be an "intentional" self-determination -- indeed we may be unthinkingly swept along by the influences of our culture -- but the outcome is the same: a self-sufficiency (in place of God's sufficiency through His Word) that results in self-rule.

But then who's to blame them? There are a few underlying problems that aren't mentioned or discussed, namely:

They were handed a Bible. If one cannot personally interpret the Bible without first knowing the history, etc., then one shouldn't have the Bible in their hands. The reformers certainly didn't pass along a bulletine with a warning when they handed out copies of the Bible. Neither do Protestants nowadays. If the Bible cannot be personally interpeted, and if it is dangerous to do it, why is there no warning to "Bible toating Christians". And indeed, if this is the case, then when is one prepared to read and understand the Word of God. Must one take history classes. Must one first be a scholar in early church history? When can one personally read the Bible without fearing the results of peronal opinion or bias slipping in?? Is there a difinitive time or circumstance?

If the Bible can be interpreted wrongly, then who's to interpret it?

Those who have sidestepped (even inadvertently) the authority of a fully sufficient Bible have strayed in two opposite directions. The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and authoritarian cults have wrongly given autonomy and final authority to the Church.

Although, the author of this article actually indirectly gives authority to the Catholic Church, because without the Catholic Church he wouldn't know that his 66 books were inspired by God.

And what he fails to realize is that because of our submission to the Church, we MUST necessarily submit to Scripture. He is implying that the Church is above Scripture, when the Church supports and in fact wrote the Scriptures! If we were against the Church, we would have to be against Scripture, and vise versa!

Our knee-jerk response is to think this error is surely not to be found in our camp. But think again. Even some Fundamental and Reformed churches have drifted into an authoritarian church polity that speaks "almost infallibly" whenever the pastor preaches or the church leadership decides an issue. In place of sola Scriptura they have substituted sola ecclesia resulting in an autonomous church.

Agreed.

At the other end of the spectrum are those who, in reaction to an authoritarian church, have skirted a fully sufficient Bible by giving autonomy and final authority to the individual's conscience and reason. They assert that every believer has the unfettered right to interpret the Scriptures not only for himself but by himself. Interpretation, according to this view, is strictly an individual matter. In place of sola Scriptura they have substituted SOLO Scriptura (a term coined by Douglas Jones of Credenda/Agenda), resulting in a privatized religion, theological chaos, false doctrines, endless schisms, and thousands of denominations.

Here's where I was taught the difference between the two. Although it seems to me then that Sola Scriptura is just another "doctrine" which resulted from an outgrowth of SOLO Scriptura. Or maybe Solo Scriptura is a word used by a Sola Scripturist in order to defend his doctrine by pointing out error in another doctrine. Really, both "doctrines" are man-made traditions. It looks as though SOLO Scriptura is a straw-man created by Sola's in order to make their doctrine look like the correct one. (paraphrase) 'Catholics and the like give authority to the Church, SOLO Scripturists give authority to the individual, so we, the SOLA Scripturists are right - because we give the Authority to God". But then you ask a SOLO, and they tell you that they give Authority to God. And you ask a Catholic, and they'll tell you that they are serving God too. So, now we're back at the begining: who's right?

As Keith Mathison rightly concludes in his scholarly treatise, The Shape of sola Scriptura, "most Protestants have adopted a subjective and individualistic version of sola Scriptura that bears little resemblance to the doctrine of the Reformers" (p. 14). Historically, this viewpoint came to us not from the Reformers (such as Luther and Calvin) but from those who were known as the Radical Anabaptists (or Radical Reformers). In reaction to the Roman Catholics making the Church a law unto itself, the Radical Anabaptists made the individual a law unto himself.

Point taken. They MUST be right since the others are wrong??

With few exceptions, solo Scriptura -- the autonomy of individual conscience and reason -- is the perspective that underlies both the consumer-driven mega churches and the leaderless house churches. Most mega churches use solo Scriptura to justify everything from church rock bands to female worship leaders. And many house churches use it to hide from any form of church authority. But as Mathison warns, "Anarchy is not the cure for tyranny. The autonomy of the individual is equally as dangerous as the autonomy of the pope or of the Church" (p. 153).

The Solution -- sola Scriptura

LOL. Like I said. Anyway. We'll continue.

Sola Scriptura literally means "Scripture alone."

And therein lies the problem. Scripture alone is silent! It needs a voice. And the voice is 1) the Church, 2.) the individual, 3) the Holy Spirit, or 4) a combo of the others.

But since the Church claims it's led by the Spirit. The individuals believe they are led by the Spirit, and even this authore would tell you that... Then... Um. Who has the Spirit!?

I'll tell you right now, the Catholic Church is the ONLY church, the only entitiy that has never changed it's interpritation of Scripture. Nor has she ever changed her Teachings.

Individuals come and go. Churches begin and die out or change to keep with the times. Even this Solo / sola thing will come to pass. But the Church never.

In How God Wants Us to Worship Him, Dr. Joe Morecraft defines sola Scriptura as "the comprehensive and completed revelation of the will of God for us by which we can be thoroughly equipped for every good work ... such a complete, perfect, eternal, all-embracing, and all-sufficient revelation from God that it will never need amendment, correction, or supplementation" (p. 10).

It doesn't need supplementation? Let's keep this thought fresh...

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), one of the most influential statements of belief ever written, gives its understanding of sola Scriptura in these words: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." (WCF, 1:6).

The above definitions of sola Scriptura are firmly grounded in the Bible as is obvious from a reading of several pertinent passages:

2 Tim. 3:16-17 -- "All Scripture is inspired (breathed out) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate (sufficient, competent), equipped for every good work."

I'd like to point out that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training. It is the teaching, reproof, correction and training that makes the man of God adequate. Scripture never limits teaching, reproof, correction, and training to Scripture alone. In other words, it is profitable to use Scripture for teaching, but teaching may also include Tradition (as handed down by Christ). It is Teaching that makes a man adequate. Scripture is profitable for Teaching.

2 Pet. 1:3-4 -- "His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life (salvation) and godliness (sanctification), through the true knowledge (in the Bible) of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises (in the Bible), so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature (conformed to Christ), having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust."

I thought that Scripture didn't need "supplementation", yet he disproves this by the necessity to use (brackets) in order to clarify what Scripture is saying. In fact, the way he populates this passage, one would conclude that Peter himself had a Bible. But we know that a "Bible" didn't exist until nearly 400 years later! Scripture wasn't even complete.

1 Tim. 3:15 -- "I write so that (the purpose) you will know how one ought (must) to conduct himself in the household of God (church life and order), which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

LOL. An obviouse attempt to take our eyes off the meaning of the passage, which is that the CHURCH is the PILLAR and SUPPORT of the TRUTH. He didn't HAVE to write. Therefore, the WORD OF GOD didn't have to come in writing! St. Paul only had to write because he couldn't be in two or more places at once! But the church that he was at didn't get his letter. They heard his teachings from his mouth. LOL.

1 Cor. 4:6 -- "Now these things (vv. 1-5), brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us (Paul's and Apollos's faithful example) you may learn not to exceed what is written (with human innovation), so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other (caused by pride in opinions)."

Out of context. What was it that they were "exceeding"? And what was written that they were exceeding? Because the NT hadn't even been compiled at this time. And if we were to take that passage for what this authore intends, we would have then to cast out the NT as it exceeds the OT.

Deut. 4:2 -- "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Cf. also Deut. 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19.)

Well, then Protestants should make darn sure that the 66 books they use weren't subtracted from.

Psalm 19:7-9 -- "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous."

Isa. 55:11 -- "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (needs no supplementation)"

These two passages talke about the Word of God. But "Bible" and not even "Scripture" are mentioned. Isn't Jesus the Word of God? And if no supplementation is needed, did he need to add (needs no supplementation) for us to know that?

In sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, Brian Schwertley explains that the Westminster Confession's censure against "new revelations of the Spirit" is teaching two essential elements: the completeness and the finality of Scripture. The revelatory process ceased with the sixty-six books in the Old and New Testaments which contain exactly what God wanted us to have. Our Lord told His disciples that, after His ascension, He would send the Holy Spirit who would guide them (the disciples present) into ALL the truth (John 16:7,13; 14:26). These were the men who, under the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would finalize the writing of the New Testament. Paul said that when the "perfect" comes (i.e., the completed New Testament revelation), prophecy and other modes of revelation would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-12). It is a fact of history that divine revelation did cease when the last Apostle died.

Firstly, the "perfect" isn't the complete New Testament revelation". The Perfect is Christ! Secondly, if all other modes of revelation had ceased, then who does the author suppose came up with the NT table of contents, and why does he believe them. Wouldn't we have to believe that ALL of the writtings of ALL of the "present" disciples were inspired?

I could go on, but I feel my point was made. Further more, the fact the this guy quotes: Dr. Joe Morecraft, Keith Mathison, Dr. John MacArthur, Brian Schwertley and A.A. Hodge, to name a few sources, solidifies the fact that it is impossible to "interpret" Scripture without "supplementation". You'd think if that was the case, this guy could write his article without the aid of others.

Anyway. Okay. So now I know the "difference" between Solo and Sola.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Great post Jake!

I was just going to say that the Church teaches the sufficiency of Scripture. The protestants have different versions of sola scriptura but regardless of where you stand on the precise nature of sola scriptura the problems of authority and interpretation remain. The Church doesn't have this problem because it has always taught that the Scriptures cannot be seperated from Sacred Tradition and the authoritative Church. This is in line with what the Scriptures say about themselves and is in line with what the Fathers believed.

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/authority/authority_6.htm

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm