#Sola Scriptura

[nightinggale91]

[artist-issues]

So if you believe every biblical word is 100% the word of your god, not to be questioned, only obeyed, regardless of how far humanity develops, how do you manage Ephesians 6:5-9?

Should human trafficking victims simply obey their captors “with a sincere heart” given that they are “servants of Christ” and the Bible urges bond servants to be “faithful and obedient?”

Hell, it promises obedient slaves will be rewarded in Heaven.

To anyone reading, seriously, check the whole verse, the context doesn’t make it better.

If your argument is that all in the Bible is above question, how do you account for that?

Nobody said "not to he questioned, only to he obeyed"—if what you MEAN by "not to be questioned," is "not to be carefully examined in order to get it right." The Bible straight-up says to carefully examine God's words. So don't be disingenuous.

Every Biblical word is 100% the Word of God, yeah. Ephesians 6:1-9 says:

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long in the land. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the integrity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, serving with good will as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."

The chapter is talking about Christian-human relationships with other humans. Starts with the most basic human institution—family. Moves on to slaves and masters. Slaves, indentured servants, bond slaves, were all common in the time of the Bible being written. It was not cultural taboo to have people living with and working for you, or even being bought and sold by you—what the Bible is saying here is actually very counter-cultural. Because it means you have to keep treating them as equal humans, not objects or beasts of burden you can beat or mistreat however you want. Which is a low bar in our minds, but was an incredibly high bar back then. It's called "interpretation." You can't just take words written in a specific context and time period, for a specific intent, with a thousands-of-years-older vocabulary and culture, and go "oh, well in my time period and my language that word means this." It's about as dumb as saying the Wizard of Oz is about queer sex purely because of how many times the word "queer" is printed in the book.

Human trafficking victims are not the kind of "slaves" this verse is talking about, and I bet you know it.

In fact, there is too much anti-human-trafficking philosophy in the Bible for even the most ardent atheist to try the same little "discredit the Bible" smear tactic you're trying right now. Anyone who knows anything about history (beyond a mere 185 years ago, that is) and can see concepts beyond the far-West-ideology of "slavery bad" can have a more intelligent discussion than this.

I'm tired of the same old tripe.

Don't you see that God is using the same term, "slaves" to refer to Christians, HIS people, who are also called His "sheep, children, beloved, inheritors, heirs?" In this same verse? So then when the God who invented humanity uses the word "slave" can't you infer that maybe He doesn't mean it with the same baby-level-100 1/2-year-old connotations that you do? If He's using it to refer to the very same people He loves, protects, sacrificed His life for, and goes to unimaginable lengths to bless--then do you really think this verse is talking about people who are categorically worth being treated as less than human?

That doesn't make sense. You can see that it doesn't make sense.

Bottom line: if God said slavery was morally acceptable, guess what? It would be morally acceptable. He invented reality, your brain, and morality. But He didn't say that, so grow up and be serious. Instead, what He said was listed above: no matter your circumstances, be it as a child, father, slave, or master, remember and conduct yourself as if you're all slaves of God, and you're living to please Him, not each other or yourselves.

God condemns "man-stealing" in Exodus 21:16. Deuteronomy 22 condemns rape. The same God wrote 100% of the Bible through several different authors across centuries by the inspiration of the very words with His Spirit. No, this passage of Ephesians does not tell sexually trafficked victims to obey their kidnappers and rapists. And you know it. Got anything else?

[gospel-art-project]

[sapphosremains]

i mean you guys all know about me and my sola scriptura issues (insert scream) but was reading an article by wright (article here thanks Kaleb for the intro to him) and even if you don't agree with the interpretation etc, the incredible amount of context he uses to begin to dissect the verses is INSANE. not even beginning to think about translation etc. once again - the Bible is not one book. it was not written by one person. it was not written by God. it was written by real people in a real time with real things happening around them that they were responding to, and it was also written to real people. whether it's the Gospels and their different audiences (Jews/Gentiles) or Paul writing to different places and Timothy etc, there is SO much context. so no, you cannot just read Holy Scripture and take from it what you will because you will come out with an answer that is fundamentally driven by your own preexisting views (i am just as guilty of this). like not to take an extreme example but if you took my texts w even just one friend and took it as a religious book you'd come out w some crazy rules... for example:

I screenshotted and sent an image: ("OxLOVE to my Cambridge bf, he is better than every oxford man") - okay, well Grace is the authority and her word is the law and she's quoted this image so obviously all cambridge men are better than oxford men

"i'm so funny no one has ever been funnier than me ever" - direct truth.

"google it" - ultimate solution to all problems

it is better to text your friends than it is to put on clothes

the cooking implements we are allowed in my sixth form are the only permissible cooking implements

anyway i'm being ridiculous but you take my point CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT

[apenitentialprayer]

He who does biblical theology wishes to say exactly what the Scripture says, yet he cannot simply repeat the words of Scripture. In this respect, it seems to me, the only but essential difference between Protestant and Catholic theology is this: that for the Catholic theologian the logical explanation of the words of Scripture by the Church can definitely become a statement of faith; whereas for the Protestant theologian it remains basically theology, and it may always be revised and reversed. Let us add this, however: that although the logical explanation of the words of Scripture by the Church can become for us an unchangeable dogma, we see that even then it differs qualitatively from Scripture. Furthermore, not only insofar as it validly binds our faith, but also for its meaning and interpretation, such a formula always looks back to the words of Scripture (or of the original tradition). It is also true that this word of Scripture remains alive and normative only if, through a dogmatically binding (logical) explanation, it abides in the ever-changing historical situation.

Karl Rahner (The Trinity, page 54), trans. Joseph Donceel. Bolded emphases added.

[definitely-not-my-real-name]

[tmarshconnors]

*A pastor who fails to deal with sin is like a doctor who fails to deal with illness. You better find another one."

Martin Luther OSA was a German priest, theologian, author, hymnwriter, professor, and Augustinian friar. Luther was the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation, and his theological beliefs form the basis of Lutheranism. He is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in Western and Christian history. 

Nailed the 95 Theses: Martin Luther is best known for his 95 Theses, which he is said to have nailed to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. This act is commonly considered the starting point of the Protestant Reformation, challenging the Catholic Church's practices, particularly the sale of indulgences.

Excommunicated and Outlawed: In 1521, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X and declared an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms. Despite this, he continued to promote his reforms and translated the Bible into German, making it more accessible to the common people.

Translation of the Bible: Luther translated the Bible into German, starting with the New Testament in 1522 and completing the Old Testament in 1534. His translation played a significant role in shaping the German language and making the Scriptures accessible to a broader audience.

Theological Contributions: Luther's theology emphasized key doctrines such as justification by faith alone (sola fide), the authority of Scripture alone (sola scriptura), and the priesthood of all believers. These ideas were foundational to the development of Protestantism.

Lutheranism: Martin Luther’s teachings and reforms led to the establishment of the Lutheran Church, one of the major branches of Protestantism. His followers, known as Lutherans, continued to develop his theological insights and build upon his reforming work, influencing the course of Christian history.

[mrpagesfrontispiece]

Protestants will literally defend Sola Scriptura and then turn around and say that Galatians 3:28 is less important than their traditions of patriarchy lmao.

To be clear, the Anglican Church did NOT split from the Roman Catholic Church in the Protestant Reformation, so we aren’t Protestant.

[fightinglikeaman]

[walkingthroughthisworld]

The Five Solas of the Reformation Sola Scriptura Sola Fide Sola Gratia Solus Christus Soli Deo Gloria

Design by Peter Voth

[protestantworkthatethic]

Scripture alone doesn't mean we literally never hear God anywhere else. It's the final authority for everything we believe.

[beginnerblueglass]

I have a weird relationship with Luther, because on the one hand the Reformation is objectively a very good thing faith-wise, but on the other hand I can never ever ever like or admire him because he's the one and only man who managed to write things so vile I actually *cried* reading them (his later antisemitic writings. Like I'm not being hyperbolic in the SLIGHTEST when I say it's worse than actual Nazi writings. It's extremely foul, vulgar, deranged, you name it.)

I completely understand, and it's a terrible shame that a man who wrote such incredible things, sparked such an important theological movement, and seemed so moved at times by the love of God also displayed such bigotry and hatred.

I'm inclined to think that God allows every world-renowned Bible teacher to be obviously wrong about something (not too hard, their being human and all), to remind us that absolutely everything is to be tested against Scripture alone, and to reinforce the unique infallibility/inerrancy of Scripture alone. Our foundation is not on the knowledge, love, righteousness, etc. of any man but Christ. I'll forever question why Luther had to be wrong about something so grievous...

I'm also be no means an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong about any of this (and I don't think his antisemitism can or should be defended, to be clear). But my study of Luther indicates that his polemics against the Jews not only contradicted Scripture, but they contradicted his own previous writings. Earlier in his career he wrote positively about the Jews, Jesus' Jewishness, the Jewish context of the New Testament, and God's irrevocable blessing/promise for the Jewish people, all in the light of Scripture, and in defiance of the common attitude toward Jews found in his 16th century Christian/Catholic contemporaries.

I understand that he spent time with rabbis and got their input on his Old Testament translation. Not that I'm saying "this man couldn't have really been antisemitic, look, he was friendly with Jews at one point in his life!" But what happened? I read that it's possible that he had rather a personal quarrel with a Jewish individual or group, and abused his fame by taking it out on the Jewish people as a whole, in print, with all the weight of the most evil things people had to say about Jews. This one lecture I heard on Luther mentioned that he was offended by the mockery he heard from Jews concerning Jesus and Christianity. I myself have been prickled by some blasphemous things I've heard Jewish people say about Jesus, but there's a time, place, and manner of addressing such things, and Luther did not by any means go about it in an acceptable or Christ-like way. Truly, evil men throughout history have too easily taken advantage of Luther's foolishness and vitriol.

I fully support having mixed feelings about Martin Luther. Hopefully every Christian has mixed feelings about him! Everyone has their limit, and there are certainly some Bible teachers that I would just rather have nothing to do with because of the controversies mixed in with the (often undeniable) good in their careers. There's no shortage of teachers out there, none of them perfect. As for Luther, some of his writings have affected me in such a profound and personal way, and so truthfully opened up Scripture, that I can't throw him out wholecloth. God gave him a surplus of bravery, to do what he did; maybe that bravery turned into recklessness in areas. It calls for a Berean attitude I think; examination of each word, discernment, testing, deep knowledge of the Word, wisdom, hearing from other mature and learned Christians what teachings of Luther (and others) have been accepted and celebrated, and what has been denied and condemned as unbiblical, and above all, the Holy Spirit. I'm not there yet, but by God's grace and guidance, I'm trying.

[anglocatholicboyo]

DISCLAIMER: I NO LONGER BELIEVE THIS - what follows is a gross misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura; I now accept Sola Scriptura. I'm keeping this post up for posterity's sake, with this caveat prefacing it.

Anyway here's my dumbass take:

sola scriptura types act as if Jesus just came to earth, handed each of the apostles a KJV, told them 'good luck' and then left

how could one possibly believe 'i am with you evermore' and that the Holy Ghost rests on the church (as Christ breathed him onto the apostles), and *not* think that the tradition of the church, guided by the same Spirit, continues to reveal God's will?

[gregoriaofnyssa]

Hello, thank you for your comments on biblical authorship. As I could not reply any longer in the comment section of your original post, I just want to write a short message. I am sorry if I got you wrong concerning this point because I thought you were advocating modern methods of scripture interpretation. Protestant (and also roman catholic) views of scripture are not part of the orthodox tradition and are contrary to the faith - and it is very sad to see these mehtods being used by people in the orthodox church, especially in America and in Greece. Sorry if I got you wrong in this point, maybe my English is not good enough for arguments of that sort;)

Be blessed!

Hi,

Thank you for being kind about it, and I'm sorry for being short with you. We just had a miscommunication.

The situation that inspired me to make that post was someone who was a self-professed "biblical literalist" who claimed that some parts of the Bible are more Divinely Inspired than others. Their specific claim was that you can't actually trust some parts of the Gospels because, as this person said, "They were added later by scribes." This person was a protestant of a very particular kind, and they try to meld secular, modernist Biblical "scholarship" with a hyper-literal interpretation of scripture. This person also tried to tell me that Because of the linguistic patterns in Genisis 1-4, "Gen 1 was obviously added in the second temple period to give an overview, so it isn't as important." like ???? what??

The statement, so it isn't as important, is really the main issue. I am certain there are some parts of scripture that were added as notes, in addition to the original texts written or orated by the prophets or apostles. We just know this to be true based on the translations we have. Virtually all of the manuscripts come from lectionaries with notes for sermons and the reader/deacon. But to say that this makes their additions, which were included as scripture in the Councils(!) lesser or "not really scripture" does violence to the scriptures.

Original authorship is true, and it is also true that things get passed along, added, and shifted. Fortunately, we as Orthodox people do not need to cling onto "sola scriptura [in the original language/original manuscripts/etc]" because we have the traditions of the Church. We know that every person in every stage of the speaking/writing, scribing, annotating, selecting, and translating were chosen by God to do so, and were moved by the Holy Spirit to act perfectly, as to maintain the divine inspiration of the scriptures.

My intention was not to say that the prophets simply inspired others to write the scriptures-- that would go completely against not only the teachings of Orthodoxy, but also the historical teachings of every apostolic Church on the planet.

God be with you <3

[sapphosremains]

What is your view on how the scriptures are inspired, if at all?

hiya!! :)

I believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired. I believe that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God and one method of divine revelation. CCC101 puts it very nicely: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men". CCC105: "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

I initially looked to the CCC to help me conceptualise my views but actually it can do all the work for me! Its wording is perfect:

110: "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current."

So, yes, I believe the Scriptures are divinely inspired, and inerrant. I also believe that human interpretation is fallible (because of course it is, and of course we are). Therefore it is incredibly important that we have Tradition, and also context. In terms of Tradition, I believe that this is the other method of divine revelation. As I'm sure I've quoted before on this blog - Christ didn't pop down, leave us a KJV, and say good luck - He left His Church and Apostles etc. We have a line of succession and passing down of knowledge from literally God himself! Now, context. As I said in my vaguely satirical and definitely exaggerating post earlier, which I guess your ask is partially in response to, the Scriptures, although divinely inspired, were written by human authors at a real time in real places in real cultures and societies with real politics and things happening. So, I think to truly understand the Scriptures, we have to read them in the context in which they were written. I love Paul, but we live 2000 years apart. I, an 18 year old girl from 21st century England, cannot possibly understand what an apostle in the 1st century Roman Empire meant exactly without first understanding the context in which he was writing.

Anyway yes, a short dive into my less angry thoughts on sola scriptura!

[i12go4god]