Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Whoa! Bogus premise. Begs the question. The rest of the article goes downhill from there.
In addition, there is this that was posted some time about about sola Scriptura and what it is and isn't. Several of us threw our lot in with this explanation.
Opponents of SS love to misrepresent it to try to discredit it.
So to clear the air, once again, hoping something might stick among someone who has an open mind and is willing to look at something from a different point of view, I am reposting it.
Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
ALL believers have the ministry of reconciliation.
We are ALL to go out preaching the gospel and doing our best to lead people to Christ that they might be saved.
It’s not a job to be foisted off onto paid clergy.
Long and short of it is that calling religious leaders by the title of *Father* is breaking a clear, concise, simple command of Jesus, no matter how you slice it, excuse it, justify it, or rationalize it and it doesn't matter if the whole rest of the world is really wrong for calling their biological fathers *father*.
Just because everyone else sins, does not make it OK for any individual to sin.
Sin is sin. Disobedience is disobedience.
God calls us to be better than that and blame-shifting will not fly when God asks us why we followed the crowd in sin instead of taking a stand for the truth.
metmom:
No it doesn’t, see my earlier post on the subject.
That definition pretty much is where I also stand.
However I do think ‘How’ one sees the scripture in their daily life, if it's a part of their life, makes all the difference in how they ‘approach’ what sola scripture is or not.
I think of the many stories heard of people in desperation, and also those simply seeking, and they reached for the Scriptures which ultimately moved their heart and mind from the place in at the moment.
An example was a young mother, a new Christian, who's two children were kidnapped. No amount of reassurance from family nor friends could ease her pain and her great fear. Alone she “reached” for God's Word and asked Him to give her the assurance that HE knew what had happened and that this too was in His hands....she read:
“Refrain thyself from weeping, and the tears from thine eyes, for thy deeds will be rewarded and ‘thy children will be returned to they border’......
I was called to her room then to see that not only had the tears subsided....but she smiled with Joy knowing that God Himself had ‘spoken’ to her directly through the pages of His Word....and for her the promise that she would see her children again........they were returned before the end of the day.
It would be learned the police had intercepted truckers following the vehicle the children were in, who knew ‘every moment’ where they were as the car traveled, and it's final stop.
What a testimony to the reliability of God's Words to us on a personal level!
memom:
Don’t agree totally, we all are called to forgive yes, but all of us are not apostles.
Also, fundamental in this is that Jesus was without any sin, the Holy One of Israel amongst us. Some Jews tried to ascribe sin to him for not following all the traditions as if they were commandments, while they themselves violated the very Spirit of the commandments, something all should watch for.
You cannot have missed my premise by that much, can you? That's not what I said. I clearly delineated between "papa" as an ecclesiastical title versus fatherhood as a function of various really personal relationships. Jesus sets up the context for this by also denying us the use of rabbi and master, in addition to father. These were in wide usage among the Jews as "religious honorifics," and Jesus did not want His Ecclesia engaged in the same nonsense.
Metmom has expressed it well. You cite to tradition as the source for these disobedient titles of ecclesiastical honor, and that is true, because God didn't set that as our practice. At most we have shepherds and elders. But see how you use your tradition to nullify the command of God. Your "exceptions" swallow the rule. There is no one we couldn't call father if they can show the least bit of spiritual authority. Then who is left to be prohibited from the title? The rule becomes meaningless, even though Christ gave it as a specific prohibition to ecclesiastical titles. More to say, but will have to wait till later.
No, your Reformed theological novelty does not fit what both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaches, so you try to make the Bible say what you want it to say, relying on folks like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox 1500 year after the fact. No Church Father took those passages to mean what you are trying to make them.
If this strawman is intended to nullify the verse that says to call NO man Father; then it doesn't.
Who said we wuz?
Hmm. That’s pretty much a conversation closer. I’m at work at can’t research the patristics on this, though as you surely know I hold that God will still be true though every man is shown to be a liar, so while patristic views would be good to know, the God-breathed Scriptures stand on their own, and always accomplish the purpose to which God sends them.
I further note, just for the record, your response appears to be a naked appeal to authority. That’s a recognized fallacy where the authority is the very thing being contested. Put another way, you are not addressing the textual issue, but passing the buck to your institutional resources. That’s fine. That’s your choice. But it amounts to a concession that my point, as I framed it, has no analytical, textual response from your side. That’s fine too. I’ll take a concession by default. :)
Peace,
SR
Still you go back to the church, which is not in this discussion. Do you believe that either interpretation is reasonable? If not, why not? There must be a reason that you are sure that Jesus was using ‘you plural’ here. I would appreciate knowing what convinced you of that because I read it exactly the opposite.
It’s times like these when it’s clear Jesus should have been born in the south, then He would have said y’all and cleared it all up.
:-)
O2
You can take it however you want to. Because authority is part of the issue at hand isn’t it?. You are relying on 1 or 2 things, Calvin and Knox’s interpretation or your own with them as the major authoritative source.
As I said the term Papa from the Greek Papas [literally Daddy] was applied to not only the Bishop of Rome, but all Bishops and priests, gradually, the term Papa or Pope began to be reserved as an ecclesiastical title for the Bishop of Rome and the word father was used as an ecclesiastical title for priests who were not Bishops.
By which they nullified the command of God in using a forbidden ecclesiastical title. I never read Calvin or Knox on the subject. The text is obvious on its own to any typical reader. There are no major ambiguities to wade through. This isn’t rocket science. My five year old granddaughter could understand this. But you have a tradition to defend, and so you do. Nothing surprising in that. But you understand how this terminates rational discussion of the meaning of the text. Your presumed authority can rewrite this text however they like in any given century. Talk about a blank check. And we poor weak ones look on with amazement as you carefully weave your rationalization for direct disobedience to a clear command of Christ. If you want to take that kind of chance, and trust that kind of authority, that’s a matter of your own personal judgment. I can’t go there. I’d be worrying all the time God wasn’t buying the rationalization. Jesus sure didn’t buy it when the pharisees tried it.
Peace,
SR
This is a clear, plain, simple command by Jesus. It can be taken at face value and does not need interpretation, as it has no hidden meaning. It's not allegory, metaphor, parable. It's a very clear, concise command of Jesus which the Catholic church has deliberately chosen to disobey and no amount of rationalization or excuses can justify it.
Ok, why is it that in the early Church as early as 3rd century, we have written evidence in the Greek Eastern Church that the term “papas” which is Daddy/Father was used not only for Bishops but for other members of the clergy. Now lets think about that, Greek speakers and ethnic Greeks whose language the NT was written in and it was in the cultural context of the Roman empire that it was written in [now add Latin language and culture] did not have a problem reading the same text you read in English and using those terms as ecclesiastical titles. These Same Fathers were the ones whose theology was normative in defending every heresy that popped up and was rejected at all the early Councils, yet somehow you say the text means no use of the word Father. Again, Abraham, David Isaac were all called Father by NT writers given their spiritual role in leading the Jewish People. Saint Paul referred to himself as a spiritual father as did Saint John, implicitly, I his letters were he refers to the local members of the Churches he is writing to as “His children”, This term is a spiritual Father who is the one that helped lead me and guide me on my Christian Journey. Again, it is in that context the early church used the term “papas” which is where Latin used “papa” which is where the English word “Pope” comes from.
Nobody is using it to say anyone but God is Father with respect to Divinity [God the Father, who is eternal]. Father is used to Distinguish the persons of the Trinity[ from Christ and Holy Spirit], 3 distinct Divine Persons yet bonded by Love thus One God.
We know what you (and other Catholics) believe Matthew 23:9 doesn't say. So then, what exactly was Jesus prohibiting? Your arguments aside, the interpretations that I have seen from Metmom and Springfield Reformer that prohibit the title as an ecclesiastical title certainly seem to fit the context of the entire passage.
Of course you see it that way, your are a protestant. Btw, what do all you protestants call the guy or lady who leads your church. Do you use the term Reverend, which I don’t think is in the NT, and that word means “One who is to be Respected” Do you use Minister, again from a Latin word meaning “servant” Do you use “pastor”, again from a Latin word to mean Shepherd [Isn’t Jesus the Only Good Shepherd]
In fact, none of those titles are ever used. So if you guys want to be “Biblical” [sic], you should use the term “Overseer Jim”, /presbyter/elder Bubba Bob or Deacon Jones, not to confused of course with the late great LA Rams DE Deacon Jones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.