Origins of Spiritual Anarchy: Sola Scriptura

[s.i.e.]

Sola Scriptura (Latin: "by Scripture Alone") is the doctrine that the Bible alone contains everything you need for salvation and holiness. And I'm wondering if Martin Luther threw a bit too much of the baby out with the bathwater when he included this doctrine in his 95 theses, and nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in 1517.

We went from a fairly unified Church in prior to the 15th century, to now having over 33,000 denominations.

So...who do you look to for authority when it comes to your spirituality, or guidance in scripture? If you live in America, you've probably been taught, like myself, that it's pretty much you, your Bible (whatever version of your fancy), and the Holy Spirit...right? It's almost like we're all cowboys in the Wild West. Everyone has their own interpretations, perspectives, filters, and influences...and in everyone's own minds, they're all right (and, all-right!)!

Again...here in America, this idea of "Sola Scriptura" is nearly a given in all the various flavors of protestantism...but have you ever stopped to think about the fact that the Church didn't even have the Bible for the first 3 centuries after Christs death? Whatever did the Church do for those 300 plus years? However did the Church manage? And by the way, it was the Church that put the Bible together. By the Church, for the Church. Right?

Have we played a bit too much cowboy here, in this wild west? Has this caused the kind of division that Satan may be a bit pleased with?

Here's another source (copied / pasted below) with more on this:

--------------------------
Martin Luther (1483-1546) is to be given the credit for inventing the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Only or Bible Sufficiency). He had separated himself from the authority of the Papacy and the Magisterium, and thereby so doing lost all authority regarding Church matters. He then turned to the Bible, a book, as the sole source of authority. Can a book ever be a sole source of authority? Can the Constitution of the United States stand alone without an authoritive body to interpret it? What authoritive body is there to resolve disputes between opposing interpretations of the laws written within it? How long would this country have lasted if the founding fathers had not had the foresight to establish a Supreme Court, which has the final word in the interpretation of the Law of the Land? This country would have been split into factions right from the very beginning.

Isn't this exactly what happened to Protestantism? Luther separated from the Catholic Church in 1521 and immediately there were squabbles between him, Zwingli, his fellow reformer from Switzerland, and Thomas Munzer. In that same year, Munzer broke away and formed the Anabaptists. John Calvin separated in 1536 and formed Calvinism. John Knox parted company and formed the Presbyterians in 1560. John Smith started the Baptists in 1609, and John and Charles Wesley started Methodism in 1739. From the moment they separated themselves from the Catholic Church, Protestantism lost the 'Supreme Court' of Bible interpretation, the Papacy and the Magisterium, and they lost all of the authority given to those two offices by GOD Himself. See the files regarding 'Authority', and 'Magisterium', elsewhere on this website. The splits continue on to this very day, as there are now over 33,800* differing non-Catholic denominations, none of which can claim authority in the interpretation of the Law of GOD, Holy Scripture. It has become so bad that the sects are feuding amongst themselves and are further splitting internally. There are scores of splinters in the Baptists alone, and several splinters in all of the other major Protestant sects. It is every man for himself in Bible interpretation for Protestantism. If it feels good for you, it must be OK....but be prepared to suffer the consequences. There is no unity in what Martin Luther started. If anything, he made a large part of the Body of Christ impotent. It is easy to see the work of satan here, as it is HIS plan to divide and conquer. See Matt 12:25 for Satan's plan, and John 10:16 for the plan of Jesus Christ.
*World Christianity Enclopedia, April 2001, a Protestant publication.

Now what do you suppose is the root cause of all of this chaos? It was the implementation of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and with it, the private interpretation of Holy Scripture (forbidden in 2Pet 1:20 and 2Pet 3:16). Now, all of Protestantism can interpret the "Constitution of GOD's Law", the Holy Bible, as they see fit, bringing upon themselves splits, disunity, infighting, and chaos. Yes indeed, it would be a strange thing if GOD had given us an inerrant Book, and had failed to give us an authoritive, infallible interpreter for it. Now you and I both know that GOD would never do this.


Martin Luther was a prolific writer and held many views in opposition to the Catholic Church. On Nov 1, 1517, Luther took 95 theses, which he authored, and nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg Germany. The Catholic Church responded by demanding that Luther retract the statements of his which were in conflict with Church teaching.
The very earliest mention of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura was by Martin Luther as he was questioned in the Synod of Augsburg (Germany) in October 1518. In his appeal to the Council, Luther placed the Bible and his interpretation of it, above the Pope. Even so he admitted the authority of the Synod and of the Bible were equivalent, only in the hope that the Synod would give him a favorable decision. In the Leipzig Disputation in July 1519, Luther went a step further and declared that Scripture ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already erred in matters of faith. As a result he was branded a heretic.
There seems to be a contradiction here, as Luther was a Catholic Augustinian Monk, and therefore was well aware that it was Catholic Church Councils* which finalized the canons of both the Old and the New Testaments. Now at Leipzig, he declared that the product of the Councils ranked above the Councils themselves.

source: written by Bob Stanley, May 1, 1999, historical research efforts by Tim Brennan. Updated June 14, 2004

 

[jari]

SIE. You must be catholic to believe that catholics are right with their many sources of scripture to base their faith on.
The reason we believe "sola scriptura" in the bible's 66 books with the other non-canon books removed, is because the scholors considered them as insprired.
Each man for his own interpreation. Does sound good really because we all follow Jesus and not man. Some church may try to tell you how things are and what you are suposed to believe but Jesus tells us that His sheeps follow Him. Joh 10:27

So whether there are many followers of many protestant denominations or catholic church is just an statistical result of man's opinion.

We were never trully asked to believe in conclusion or anyone's interpretion. We were just suposed to believe in Jesus and in His Gospel. to which the the WHOLE bible is based on. So its reasonable to reject those who have already rejected the core message of Gospel and simplicility of Bible. And have additional bible contradicting scriptures to base their faith on. Because they could not except the message like a child. Mar 10:15

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

But this is exactly what the people who reject Bible's message - the gospel - are doing. They try to provide that what is clearly understandable from the Bible's 66 books isnt enough, to understand some mystery, that the bible would merely be pointing at.
But we know that the Bible's Gospel is no hidden secret nor mystery anymore to us who believe in it.


The Gospel:


1Co 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (2) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1Co 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

 

[s.i.e.]

jari - the source I put there was, I believe, written from a Catholic perspective...yes. However, no, I am not Catholic. However, this perspective is the same as an Orthodox perspective. Doesn't necessarily have to be Catholic, or not.

Even so, the Nicene Creed...as an example, uses a lowercase "c", right?

"one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"

So...not sure if you agree with the Nicene Creed, or not. If so, this word "catholic" simply meant the unified Church. It didn't refer to the "Catholic" (i.e., Roman Catholic, etc.) church. It referred to the unified body of believers. What we call "church".


And with 33,000+ denominations...can we say we're "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"? What does that mean, to be apostolic? What does that mean, to be catholic (i.e., unified)??

Again, these 66 books in the Bible weren't put together until the 4th century...yet, now we generally build out belief systems, doctrines, etc., on a Sola Scriptura basis.

But Christ incepted His Church on Peter, Paul, and the apostles...right? So, what lineage are we working within, in each of our denominations? Do we even know? Have we even ever thought about it?


You say we were never asked to believe in any particular conclusion, or anyone's particular interpretation of scripture. Well...be that as it may...the fact is that we all do this, knowingly, or unknowingly. We do. We all put ourselves under certain teachers, or teachings, that we then subscribe to.

You say we are all just asked to simply believe in Jesus. Sure...yeah...I get that. As do all of these tens-of-thousands of denominations, along with the millions of people involved in them. But...it surely isn't that simple -- at least not in practice -- right? If it were, we would actually be operating as one "holy, catholic, and apostolic Church".


But we're not. We're far far from it. And increasingly so.

We have a smorgasbord of denominations and belief systems to choose from. We live in a "church" system which is, within the context of Christianity, ruled by anarchy. Maybe this is a non-issue, and shouldn't be viewed as an issue? Perhaps that's your view, jari?

 

[jari]

jari - the source I put there was, I believe, written from a Catholic perspective...yes. However, no, I am not Catholic. However, this perspective is the same as an Orthodox perspective. Doesn't necessarily have to be Catholic, or not.

Even so, the Nicene Creed...as an example, uses a lowercase "c", right?

"one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"

I havent studied nicene creed.

So...not sure if you agree with the Nicene Creed, or not. If so, this word "catholic" simply meant the unified Church. It didn't refer to the "Catholic" (i.e., Roman Catholic, etc.) church. It referred to the unified body of believers. What we call "church".

Catholic church isnt for unification of believers it excluses everyone who doesnt submit to their belief and authority. In practice its more like unifier of those who share the same beliefs their church does and not simple believers of Jesus.

Again, these 66 books in the Bible weren't put together until the 4th century...yet, now we generally build out belief systems, doctrines, etc., on a Sola Scriptura basis.

The phrase Sola scriptura was sort of invented to counter the catholic church's vast sources of scripture. To say bible has all we need to know and you dont have to look futher.

But they go beond.

But Christ incepted His Church on Peter, Paul, and the apostles...right? So, what lineage are we working within, in each of our denominations? Do we even know? Have we even ever thought about it?

This is false catholic belief. Church has always based on Jesus. Jesus as the head of the church. But some english translations give the idea that apostole peter had some special authority as founder of the church. But in reality Jesus is to whom the church is built. You just cant see it many english translations.

You say we were never asked to believe in any particular conclusion, or anyone's particular interpretation of scripture. Well...be that as it may...the fact is that we all do this, knowingly, or unknowingly. We do. We all put ourselves under certain teachers, or teachings, that we then subscribe to.

You say we are all just asked to simply believe in Jesus. Sure...yeah...I get that. As do all of these tens-of-thousands of denominations, along with the millions of people involved in them. But...it surely isn't that simple -- at least not in practice -- right? If it were, we would actually be operating as one "holy, catholic, and apostolic Church".

I dont think faith was ever so complicated. Like you pointed out ur self bible wasnt with early believers. And thats how simple the faith is. And the only thing we need to know if that Jesus died and rose for our sins. Thats why we have 66 boosk to teach about this topic that do not contradict this simple message unlike the catholic texts that do contradict the grace of God. And we have the Holy spirit in us to profess that what Bible says is true and the excluded scripture were excluded for right reasons.




Anarchy?


There has been different opinions and human errors among believers since the times first NT letters of bible were written. 1Co 1:11-14. Its just the way things go with us imperfect humans

What matters is that we walk the same way:

Php 3:15-17 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (16) Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. (17) Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

 

[s.i.e.]

I havent studied nicene creed.

You should. IMO

Catholic church isnt for unification of believers it excluses everyone who doesnt submit to their belief and authority. In practice its more like unifier of those who share the same beliefs their church does and not simple believers of Jesus.

Not sure why you're picking on the Catholic Church for this. You could say the same thing about every Church, could you not? Again...all (well, most all!) Church's would say they are "believers of Jesus". It's rarely the "essentials" that are the points of disagreement.

The phrase Sola scriptura was sort of invented to counter the catholic church's vast sources of scripture.

Yes...and while I'm not (in the slightest!) arguing for Catholicism, I am wondering if this "blowback" that was given against the Catholic Church (starting with Martin Luther) was a throwing out of the baby along with the bathwater.

Again, to go from essentially one unified Church prior to the 15th Century, to what we now have today, seems a bit extreme, to say the least. To me, anyways.

Anarchy?

Yes, Anarchy. Let's look at a definition (Wikipedia...which pulls from Merriam-Webster)

an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/Noun1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

...again, show me how that is not exactly what "we the church" have done here? Our deal is "me, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit" is all I need!

In other words, like anarchists, we have absentia and/or nonrecognition of any central authority, when it comes to Biblical and or spiritual authority! We view the spiritual ideal as very individualized, do we not? (hence, the tens of thousands of denominations, etc.)

So, yes, anarchy is our modus operandi in Westernized Christianity.

Php 3:15-17 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (16) Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. (17) Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

jari - you say you haven't studied the Nicene Creed. The verse above, as with many other verses, would suggest a unified body of believers, which is not what we have, especially in our western world. in this case, Paul was acting very much as the "authority" by which the Church of Philipi looked to. He, along with the other apostles, are what the Church was built upon. Today, we have no such centralized thing as they did.

Paul was not of the mindset that it was everyone to be each to his own. They walked together. I can't imagine Paul would ever have dreamed of the world unfolding into 33,000 "authorities" on what it looks like to "walk together"...can you?

 

[s.i.e.]

The reason we believe "sola scriptura" in the bible's 66 books with the other non-canon books removed, is because the scholors considered them as insprired.
Each man for his own interpreation. Does sound good really because we all follow Jesus and not man. Some church may try to tell you how things are and what you are suposed to believe but Jesus tells us that His sheeps follow Him. Joh 10:27

I should have pointed this out from your first post to this thread jari...but it just occured to me now: do you see the inherent problems and conflicts with your statement above, as well as your statement below?

We were never trully asked to believe in conclusion or anyone's interpretion. We were just suposed to believe in Jesus and in His Gospel. to which the the WHOLE bible is based on. So its reasonable to reject those who have already rejected the core message of Gospel and simplicility of Bible. And have additional bible contradicting scriptures to base their faith on. Because they could not except the message like a child. Mar 10:15

jari: who exactly were those "scholars"? You say that the reason you subscribe to "sola scriptura" is because these scholars considered the 66 books of the Bible as "inspired". (and, you consider the non-canonical books to be non-inspired, because those same scholars considered them to be non-inspired.

In other words, you, as well as most all Christians in the Western world, originally relied upon the authority of some sort of "ordained" or "authorized" group of folks to create the Bible in the first place.

Yet now, you hold high, the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", and rely upon yourself, The Bible (created by an authoritative group of humans), and the Holy Spirit, solely!?!

This is an obvious juxtaposition. It's an obvious and inherent fallacy, or, at a minimum, potential fallacy!
You seem to take comfort in this position, because you feel that as long as "people are following Jesus", then all will be well with the world. You have the Holy Spirit, and you have accepted Jesus (at least, I assume you have)...so, you have no need for any other authority figures or groups to speak into your spirituality, right? It's a completely individualized thing, so we're led to believe in the Western world.

But...YOUR WHOLE M.O. STARTS AND FINISHES WITH A THING (The Bible) THAT WAS CREATED BY AN AUTHORITATIVE GROUP. And, dare I add, Government influenced? (yes, I dare...because it's true)


You believe you "were never asked to believe in anyone's interpretation". But, that's a second derivative question. You first have to ask what is in front of me that is to be interpreted? And that thing that is in front of you, was put together by an Authoritative group, which at the time, was considered THE CHURCH. Not A Church, not a denomination, not a parish, not a sect, not a faction, not a small-group. The Church, derived from the Church of Peter, which Jesus Christ set up. Authoritative, indeed.

But this is exactly what the people who reject Bible's message - the gospel - are doing. They try to provide that what is clearly understandable from the Bible's 66 books isnt enough

Again, the 66 books of which you speak was created by the Council of Nicea. I really don't mean to "should" on you...but you might want to check out The Nicene Creed, as a starting point here.

 

[jari]

But...YOUR WHOLE M.O. STARTS AND FINISHES WITH A THING (The Bible) THAT WAS CREATED BY AN AUTHORITATIVE GROUP. And, dare I add, Government influenced? (yes, I dare...because it's true)

Alll I say is that I agree with the selection of the 66 books. Ive read most of the non-canon books and its pretty clear why they werent included.

You believe you "were never asked to believe in anyone's interpretation". But, that's a second derivative question. You first have to ask what is in front of me that is to be interpreted? And that thing that is in front of you, was put together by an Authoritative group, which at the time, was considered THE CHURCH. Not A Church, not a denomination, not a parish, not a sect, not a faction, not a small-group.

Who ever picked the books and gathered them together did a good Job in my opinion, thats all.

The Church, derived from the Church of Peter, which Jesus Christ set up. Authoritative, indeed.

Christinaity was never meant to be ordained by certain followers or ruled by certain followers or anything like that. But of course teachers were needed to teach the unlearned.
Message however remains same.
and the message and teaching Apostoles wrote does not contradict Jesus' teachings.

 

[s.i.e.]

Christinaity was never meant to be ordained by certain followers or ruled by certain followers or anything like that. But of course teachers were needed to teach the unlearned.
Message however remains same.
and the message and teaching Apostoles wrote does not contradict Jesus' teachings.

If Jesus believed in a "Sola Scriptura" doctrine, then why would he have chosen Peter by which to build His Church upon? Or Paul? Or any of the Apostles for that matter?

Was this just to "fill the gap" of the first 3+ centuries, and from there forward, Jesus' intentions and will, was then morphed into a "ride-em-cowboy style spirituality (with the newly blessed 66 books of the Bible in your sachel) ??

No, the message doesn't remain the same. The message you are calling the message never even existed in Jesus time. It was created afterward.

You're right, the message the Apostles taught doesn't contradict Jesus teachings. That's because He passed it down to them. And so forth, and so on, down the generations. But who has it been passed down to now? I mean, I know that we all "know" the Gospel...but again, as for the questions that arise in Scripture from time to time that we need insight on, the nuances, the things that are less-so black-and-white'ish...then what?

We lean somewhere. We look to something. We can say we lean solely on Scripture and the Holy Spirit...but the truth is, we are supported by someone, something, some institution, some background, some community, etc. It's just that those things we lean on have become whatever has come to fit our fancy, and there's a smorgasbord of things that are aligned to fit our particular tastes, du jour!

Welcome to the era of choice, discretion, options, preferences, needs-based-programs-and-services, and consumerism: the Church is here to serve you!


hmm...wait a minute. Really? We have a Church that fits us very well. We reject a Church that we have to fit with. It seems the Church may subscribe as much to Ayn Rand'ish teachings with Individualism as much as any other doctrine is prescribes nowdays.

...has something been lost in all of that? What has been lost in all of this?

 

[jari]

Buddy, Again Peter was not the one whom the church was built. The True Rock is Jesus. You have to look at the greek in the bible to see this but its the truth.

And I dont know why you think the message apostoles teached was any different from Jesus message. Its exactly the same.

I admit Bible is just collection of writings, but inspired writings. Written by people who were with Jesus right from the beginning. And very spiritual people.

If you want to look at other writings than Bible go ahead no ones stopping ya...

But im gona stick with bible because nothing else has impressed me so far.

Also there maybe many denominations but I believe the good thing is christians arent ruled over by some authority who tells them what to believe and if they dont they are in trouple.

Born again Christian is led by God's spirit and knows the truth. We have the Holy spirit and need no man to tell us about God and how to believe and who to believe in. We Believe in Jesus...
And even we are in many denominations we together are the true church whos's head is Christ.
The true church is not building but people. Born of God. Afterall bible is just knowledge its truly the son-ship of God that makes us christians.

And atleast we dont have one Big church telling us how to feel about Jesus.
And even we have denominations we are free to that very spiritual faith that God has given each of us.....

 

[s.i.e.]

Buddy, Again Peter was not the one whom the church was built. The True Rock is Jesus. You have to look at the greek in the bible to see this but its the truth.

Not sure which True Rock you're referring to jari...but you need to take another look at what Jesus said to Peter in the Book of Matthew:

Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,^c and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades^d will not overcome it.^e 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be^f bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be^g loosed in heaven.”

Jesus was the stone that the builders refused, which became the Chief Cornerstone. The Chief Cornerstone, in my mind, may as well be a "True Rock", but that particular term I don't recall being referenced as a name for Jesus in the Bible. Refresh my memory on this? Or, perhaps, this is where your Greek cross-references are helpful?

And I dont know why you think the message apostoles teached was any different from Jesus message. Its exactly the same.

jari - again, I don't think this. I'm not sure where you've believed that I have claimed this. I haven't. Indeed...this thread is, if anything, asking the question as to why we, "the church", have departed so far from all apostolic lineage, history, and traditions...and part of why I think this is an important question, is because Jesus intended for His Church to be built through an Apostle, in Peter!

You are correct, indeed, that the Apostolic teachings were exactly the same as Jesus's! So, the fact that we have departed so far from this is, perhaps, at our own loss. (again, hence, my question, and this thread!)

I admit Bible is just collection of writings, but inspired writings. Written by people who were with Jesus right from the beginning. And very spiritual people.

Well...I would believe, and agree with you, that they are inspired. But no, you're incorrect that it was written by people who were with Jesus right from the beginning. Many of them, yes, but not all.

Paul, who wrote about 2/3rds of the entire New Testament, wasn't "with Jesus right from the beginning". Paul never even met Jesus. Paul's experience of Jesus happened on the Road to Damascus, after Jesus had already ascended.

If you want to look at other writings than Bible go ahead no ones stopping ya...

Thank you for submitting "Exhibit A" (or, perhaps we're further down the alphabet already at this point?), as to the problem that has arisen from a Sola Scriptura belief system.

You have truth. I have truth. Everybody has truth truth. Everyone's O.K. Do what you want. I'll do what I want. No one's stopping ya man!!

Thanks alot for your help, jari.

Except...if it's all relative, then it's all relative! So, again, we're living in this Americanized version of Christianity...and I'll let you do what you want, and you'll let me do what I want. No harm. No foul. Carry on...

EXCEPT THERE'S EITHER TRUTH, OR THERE'S NOT! To go about it in a relativistic way is, well, an embarrassment to truth. And we all know who said they were the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So, if you're following that, you wouldn't give me a pat on the back, with a smiley-face, and send me on to hell, would you now?

But im gona stick with bible because nothing else has impressed me so far.

Ok...so, for you, one way you determine what you will allow to have authority into your life is by how much things may impress you.

Again, I'm not sure that would have been something that Peter or Paul would have taught you to believe...but perhaps, the authoritative influences into your scriptural interpretations, and your spirituality, have taught you as such?

Also there maybe many denominations but I believe the good thing is christians arent ruled over by some authority who tells them what to believe and if they dont they are in trouple.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Christians, and Church's all across our fruited plains don't tell you what and how to believe? Are you suggesting that they don't fill you with the fear of hell and damnation if you don't believe how they believe?

Indeed, the main course in most Sunday sermons is a full feast of messages as to why and how you don't and never will measure up, and what kind of trouble you'll find yourselves in if you don't shape up and get your stuff together.

My question asked here in this thread isn't intended to "bring authority back" into the Church...it's simply asking the question of how we go about determining authority.

We've always needed "authority" in Church, and in Church settings. It's just that we've gone from a unified Church, to a system of Christianized anarchy.

So, in this anarchical state of being, we've got to ask ourselves HOW AND WHY we go about letting in the voices and influences of Authority.

Born again Christian is led by God's spirit and knows the truth. We have the Holy spirit and need no man to tell us about God and how to believe and who to believe in. We Believe in Jesus...
And even we are in many denominations we together are the true church whos's head is Christ.
The true church is not building but people. Born of God. Afterall bible is just knowledge its truly the son-ship of God that makes us christians.

Yes...the head is Christ. Yes, it's people, not buildings. No one would disagree, or part ways, over those claims.

But no, we are not One Body in the Church. We have as much passions in our disagreements one denomination to the next, as any passions we may have in our disagreements outside the Church.

And I view this as a drastic parting of what Jesus would have wanted or intended when He keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter and Jesus' Church.

And atleast we dont have one Big church telling us how to feel about Jesus.
And even we have denominations we are free to that very spiritual faith that God has given each of us.....

What part of submission and submitting, might Jesus be wanting of us, when it comes to how we view Church, and the Community of Believers we surround ourselves with?

Do these words play a role at all, in our Westernized version of Christianity, where the doctrine of Sola Scriptura reigns far above something to "trite" as a word like submission?

I'm asking myself these same questions. I may be writing this thread from one side of the equation...but I'm asking myself these same questions, because I see a problem with where the Church (especially in the Western world) has trajected towards.

 

[brakelite]

Just a few observations. I cannot quite agree with the 'unified church' concept prior to the 15th century. The inquisition was devised to 'unify' the church; those who were killed by that iniquitous machine would hardly classify themselves as united in faith with the inquisitors.

I would also suggest that if the church was unified in any way it was united in error; thus the whole reason for the reformation.

And thirdly, as the council of Trent affirmed, Rome has always exalted tradition as being of equal authority to scripture, and at times, tradition trumps scripture if the church deems it so. A serious and honest study of papal history would clearly reveal the fruits of that arrangement.

As for the multiplicity of churches today, my answer to that is be patient. The book of Revelation reveals that soon, before the second coming, there will be only two churches. One, Babylon the Great, the other, "those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus." (Revel. 14:12) The whole battle between good and evil comes down to just two women. The ***** of Rev. 18, and the chaste virgin of Rev. 12. So my friends, though there may be many churches today, that will soon change when the vast majority of them join Babylon. You will then have but a choice between two churches. I suggest you join the minority. The majority are never right.

 

[s.i.e.]

yes brakelite...we can talk for quite some time about the offenses of The Church in early Christianity. I get that. And it's no small thing.

But that doesn't nullify the fact that the Church was far more united then.

My point wasn't that the reformation shouldn't have happened! The reasons for Martin Luther writing his 95 theses were extremely valid! His speaking out against indulgences, for example, was necessary and virtuous.

But: what parts of what he ushered in may have gone too far? What part was "baby out with bathwater"? And here, I'm suggesting that Sola Scriptura took the Reformation, and where we stand today, too far. We have extreme division. You say "be patient" ?? Well...obviously, there's nothing I can do about it, except discuss it with folks, like in this thread...so I'll have to be patient. But still, if you believe it will all converge towards 2 Churches in the end, then you must also have an opinion on this.

As for your third poinit...yes, I agree. But, I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic Church here. I'm talking about the Orthodox Church. I'm talking about Apostolic tradition...not Church/State-combo traditions. Yes, that is a big part of what the errors of the early Church were steeped in. Not that I'm passing blame to the State, and not the Church...but the lines were far to fuzzy back then, and that was not a good thing.

 

[jari]

SIE can i ask what church you goto? Some Western church? Or orthodox maybe?

Not sure which True Rock you're referring to jari...but you need to take another look at what Jesus said to Peter in the Book of Matthew:

Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,^c and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades^d will not overcome it.^e 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be^f bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be^g loosed in heaven.”

Jesus was the stone that the builders refused, which became the Chief Cornerstone. The Chief Cornerstone, in my mind, may as well be a "True Rock", but that particular term I don't recall being referenced as a name for Jesus in the Bible. Refresh my memory on this? Or, perhaps, this is where your Greek cross-references are helpful?

We have to look to the definition of each word here.


Mat 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (G4073), and upon this rock(G4073) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

G4074:
Petros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

G4073:
petra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

In the verse Jesus was telling Peter that he is a "rock" , "Petros" And upon the "rock" (a mass of rock), "petra" , Jesus will built His church.


So the church was built upon Jesus, the other kind rock. the Mass of rock and not just mere piece of rock which peter's name meant.


He did say Peter would get the "keys" though. Which is sensible as they were the first apostoles, the first ones to bring the message of kingdom of God to people. The Gospel.

Infact Peter is considered one of the pillars. Gal 2:9

Well...I would believe, and agree with you, that they are inspired. But no, you're incorrect that it was written by people who were with Jesus right from the beginning. Many of them, yes, but not all.

Paul, who wrote about 2/3rds of the entire New Testament, wasn't "with Jesus right from the beginning". Paul never even met Jesus. Paul's experience of Jesus happened on the Road to Damascus, after Jesus had already ascended.

Paul was from the beginning in sense too consider how he was picked by God. And was called chosen weapon of God. But the point just is that these are very spiritual men who were picked up by God in powerful way.

They were meant to start the church. Which they did. But still divisions were seen right from the beginning that Paul had to address. He actually had to put Peter straight as well for being a hypocrite. Gal 2:11-14

Thank you for submitting "Exhibit A" (or, perhaps we're further down the alphabet already at this point?), as to the problem that has arisen from a Sola Scriptura belief system.

You have truth. I have truth. Everybody has truth truth. Everyone's O.K. Do what you want. I'll do what I want. No one's stopping ya man!!

Thanks alot for your help, jari.

Except...if it's all relative, then it's all relative! So, again, we're living in this Americanized version of Christianity...and I'll let you do what you want, and you'll let me do what I want. No harm. No foul. Carry on...

EXCEPT THERE'S EITHER TRUTH, OR THERE'S NOT! To go about it in a relativistic way is, well, an embarrassment to truth. And we all know who said they were the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So, if you're following that, you wouldn't give me a pat on the back, with a smiley-face, and send me on to hell, would you now?

I dont live americanized version or anyother. True christians should look for the truth them self. And rely on no man telling them how things are.
Infact its the Holy spirit that leads us to whole truth. Joh 14:26

Ok...so, for you, one way you determine what you will allow to have authority into your life is by how much things may impress you.

Again, I'm not sure that would have been something that Peter or Paul would have taught you to believe...but perhaps, the authoritative influences into your scriptural interpretations, and your spirituality, have taught you as such?

This is kinda how it has always meant to be that we listen to God and born again christian knows the truth inward.
But the "truth" musnt be picked by our fleshly feelings and fleshly preferences. But by honesty of our faith towards Jesus Christ.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Christians, and Church's all across our fruited plains don't tell you what and how to believe? Are you suggesting that they don't fill you with the fear of hell and damnation if you don't believe how they believe?

Indeed, the main course in most Sunday sermons is a full feast of messages as to why and how you don't and never will measure up, and what kind of trouble you'll find yourselves in if you don't shape up and get your stuff together.

My question asked here in this thread isn't intended to "bring authority back" into the Church...it's simply asking the question of how we go about determining authority.

We've always needed "authority" in Church, and in Church settings. It's just that we've gone from a unified Church, to a system of Christianized anarchy.

So, in this anarchical state of being, we've got to ask ourselves HOW AND WHY we go about letting in the voices and influences of Authority.

People are free to attend the church of their choise. This is entirely different from having to submit one global church.
Now there's freedom to go where you believe is right.

Yes...the head is Christ. Yes, it's people, not buildings. No one would disagree, or part ways, over those claims.

But no, we are not One Body in the Church. We have as much passions in our disagreements one denomination to the next, as any passions we may have in our disagreements outside the Church.

And I view this as a drastic parting of what Jesus would have wanted or intended when He keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter and Jesus' Church.

Christians can still come together from any churches because we all believe in Jesus and pray to Jesus. That's when we should just lay aside our doctorinial differences.

But while we are at our churches we follow the doctrines that we agree with believing it will work the benefit of us.

We all just have different aproaches toward God and Godliness in our lives and this is why i think the denominations came.

What part of submission and submitting, might Jesus be wanting of us, when it comes to how we view Church, and the Community of Believers we surround ourselves with?

Do these words play a role at all, in our Westernized version of Christianity, where the doctrine of Sola Scriptura reigns far above something to "trite" as a word like submission?

I'm asking myself these same questions. I may be writing this thread from one side of the equation...but I'm asking myself these same questions, because I see a problem with where the Church (especially in the Western world) has trajected towards.

We should submit to God from our hearts. If church wants you to submit to it then its wrong. For Jesus is the head of the church, we as His people must submit to Him. Joh 15:7

 

[s.i.e.]

SIE can i ask what church you goto? Some Western church? Or orthodox maybe?

Yes you may. I go to a non-denominational Christian community Church. It's fairly typical of the type of non-denom's you find all across the West. No, I don't go to an Orthodox Church. And I have no interest in the Catholic Church at all. I did grow up, however, in the Episcopalian Church, where the Nicene Creed was said out loud by the congregation every Sunday morning. I really didn't like Church at all as a kid. Seriously boring. Didn't like the liturgy either. Except, I did pay attention to the Creed, and thought it was kind of cool. I appreciate it even more now.

In the verse Jesus was telling Peter that he is a "rock" , "Petros" And upon the "rock" (a mass of rock), "petra" , Jesus will built His church.


So the church was built upon Jesus, the other kind rock. the Mass of rock and not just mere piece of rock which peter's name meant.


He did say Peter would get the "keys" though.

jari - Nothing in what I'm saying in this thread, or otherwise, would try to claim that Jesus isn't THE ultimate Rock that we should be building our lives, or our churches upon. I appreciate you standing up for Jesus in this regard, but clearly, the Apostles were passed down these Keys from the Maker, and I am in no way trying to place them equal to, or above, Jesus.

As for your "G####" references, I'm not sure where you got those...but while you've given one interpretation / translation of the Mathew 16 verses, I'm sure you know there are a host of other translations / opinions on these same verses, which would lead to a different conclusion than what you've presented here.

Again, I'm happy to leave that as is, because that's not a point I am focusing on in this thread, nor interested in. You agree with the keys being passed to Peter...so there we go.

The point of this thread, is that every Tom **** and Harry nowdays claims those same keys to the kingdom, that Jesus gave to Peter.

And I'm wondering: how can that be? And with all the vastly differing opinions / perspectives on Scriptures out there...how do we then know who's got the real keys, to bind and loose here on Earth, and all? (as Jesus said Peter had this authority to do, vis-a-vis the keys He handed Peter.

It's a question rarely considered. Again, hence, this thread's attempt to do so!

Paul was from the beginning in sense too consider how he was picked by God. And was called chosen weapon of God. But the point just is that these are very spiritual men who were picked up by God in powerful way.

I'm not saying that Paul wasn't picked by God, or that He's not a very spiritual man.

BUT, every televangelist you turn on the TV today would claim that same thing about themselves too, jari!

They were meant to start the church. Which they did. But still divisions were seen right from the beginning that Paul had to address.

And address it, he did...and not only that, but get this: they actually listened!

Why? Because they had a sense of Spiritual Authority, from a 3rd Party...and not only that, but a man. (i.e., a human being. This was something other than simply the Holy Spirit, and what they had of their Bible's of that day)

...which is very much at odds with your viewpoint that you speak of here:

True christians should look for the truth them self. And rely on no man telling them how things are.

It seems you would have told Paul to hit the road. Unless, of course, Paul impressed you?

 

[jari]

jari - Nothing in what I'm saying in this thread, or otherwise, would try to claim that Jesus isn't THE ultimate Rock that we should be building our lives, or our churches upon. I appreciate you standing up for Jesus in this regard, but clearly, the Apostles were passed down these Keys from the Maker, and I am in no way trying to place them equal to, or above, Jesus.

As for your "G####" references, I'm not sure where you got those...but while you've given one interpretation / translation of the Mathew 16 verses, I'm sure you know there are a host of other translations / opinions on these same verses, which would lead to a different conclusion than what you've presented here.

These are references to the greek words (called strongs), the original language NT was written.
So that's what it really says no matter which translation you are using.

Again, I'm happy to leave that as is, because that's not a point I am focusing on in this thread, nor interested in. You agree with the keys being passed to Peter...so there we go.

The point of this thread, is that every Tom **** and Harry nowdays claims those same keys to the kingdom, that Jesus gave to Peter.

And I'm wondering: how can that be? And with all the vastly differing opinions / perspectives on Scriptures out there...how do we then know who's got the real keys, to bind and loose here on Earth, and all? (as Jesus said Peter had this authority to do, vis-a-vis the keys He handed Peter.

It's a question rarely considered. Again, hence, this thread's attempt to do so!

There's no indication in Bible that the authority given to Peter was strictly for Peter or that it could be passed down to others.

I think those called by God should have the same authority.

I'm not saying that Paul wasn't picked by God, or that He's not a very spiritual man.

BUT, every televangelist you turn on the TV today would claim that same thing about themselves too, jari!

And you will know them by their fruits who is truly God's servant.

And address it, he did...and not only that, but get this: they actually listened!

Why? Because they had a sense of Spiritual Authority, from a 3rd Party...and not only that, but a man. (i.e., a human being. This was something other than simply the Holy Spirit, and what they had of their Bible's of that day)

...which is very much at odds with your viewpoint that you speak of here:


It seems you would have told Paul to hit the road. Unless, of course, Paul impressed you?

It was no easy Job for him to get people listen to him when there was other teachers trying to make them self heard but he spoke the truth and in the end people chose it. Instead of following the charismatic appearing persons.

When i first read what Paul said I believed he was right and concluded he spoke God's words.
Thats how i think we have to find the truth. By comparing what is said with the truth know to us and even in us. (us born again believers of Christ)
And the nice thing about bible is that it doesnt contradict itself whereas other scriptures contradict the bible and were left out.

 

[brakelite]

yes brakelite...we can talk for quite some time about the offenses of The Church in early Christianity. I get that. And it's no small thing.

But that doesn't nullify the fact that the Church was far more united then.

A careful study of history would reveal that the gospel became corrupted very early in church history, in fact well before the state/church relationship that developed into the papacy. These corruptions had the inevitable affect of dividing churches. The circumcision issue was probably the first. This early controversy between Jewish converts who desired to hold onto the OT traditions and ceremonial laws and the Gentile converts who had no history of such practices however was diffused by Paul's letter to the Hebrews which clearly laid out the truth that showed that Jesus' death fully and finally paid the full price and sacrifice, and changed forever the priesthood and the central focus of the ministry. By the time of the destruction of Jerusalem that controversy had been settled.

Later, there were the Gnostic corruptions, followed by the Roman demands for a change to the current Easter observances as opposed to the Passover. All these were before there was a single united church with governance that covered more than a local community. It was the appearance of the church/state union born out of the false conversion of Constantine that then began any form of unity, but a union that had more political overtones than any faithful adherence to scriptural truth. The opposite in fact took place. The individual community churches survived on sola scripturaor at least what passed for scripture then...the OT and what letters of Paul and what copies of the gospels they held) it was the usurpation of power by the bishops of Rome after Constantine vacated his throne in favour of what he renamed as Constantinople that led to their hunger and lust for more power and authority that brought about the unity you seem keen to emulate. That unity was founded on error, and grew worse over the centuries.

My point wasn't that the reformation shouldn't have happened! The reasons for Martin Luther writing his 95 theses were extremely valid! His speaking out against indulgences, for example, was necessary and virtuous.

But: what parts of what he ushered in may have gone too far? What part was "baby out with bathwater"? And here, I'm suggesting that Sola Scriptura took the Reformation, and where we stand today, too far. We have extreme division. You say "be patient" ?? Well...obviously, there's nothing I can do about it, except discuss it with folks, like in this thread...so I'll have to be patient. But still, if you believe it will all converge towards 2 Churches in the end, then you must also have an opinion on this.

As for your third poinit...yes, I agree. But, I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic Church here. I'm talking about the Orthodox Church. I'm talking about Apostolic tradition...not Church/State-combo traditions. Yes, that is a big part of what the errors of the early Church were steeped in. Not that I'm passing blame to the State, and not the Church...but the lines were far to fuzzy back then, and that was not a good thing.

Are you saying that Apostolic tradition survived only within the Orthodox line? What of the British Celtic churches that were founded before the end of the 2nd century, or the Waldensians, the Albigenses, or the vast Christian episcopates that thrived from Arabia in the west to China and the Philippines in the east before the 5th century, all of which were untouched by the inroads of corruption that so affected the European church.

Today, it is true that there is much division. But don't be so quick to blame sola scriptura. Rather, I think the blame should be directed more at those individuals and churches who while proclaiming sola scriptura do in fact still cling to many of the corruptions and traditions of the papacy and have not fully "come out of her".

 

[s.i.e.]

All these were before there was a single united church with governance that covered more than a local community. It was the appearance of the church/state union born out of the false conversion of Constantine that then began any form of unity, but a union that had more political overtones than any faithful adherence to scriptural truth. The opposite in fact took place. The individual community churches survived on sola scripturaor at least what passed for scripture then...the OT and what letters of Paul and what copies of the gospels they held) it was the usurpation of power by the bishops of Rome after Constantine vacated his throne in favour of what he renamed as Constantinople that led to their hunger and lust for more power and authority that brought about the unity you seem keen to emulate. That unity was founded on error, and grew worse over the centuries.

brakelite - so, the plot thickens...not that I had to point it out - you did a fine job.

You seem to want to throw Constantine under the bus, which I can understand. Yet...what we now call "The Bible" was established and assembled by the Council of Nicea, the first of which was formed under Constantine's rule. So, again, for those who want to rely solely on Scripture, most are unaware that such Scripture would never had come into play had it not have been for a power grabbing and politically influenced constituency, of which you say "was founded on error, and grew worse over the centuries".

Needless to say, for the thoughtful, this should be a material problem for those who would otherwise wish to find contentment in letting their spirituality be influenced solely on Scripture.

Are you saying that Apostolic tradition survived only within the Orthodox line? What of the British Celtic churches that were founded before the end of the 2nd century, or the Waldensians, the Albigenses, or the vast Christian episcopates that thrived from Arabia in the west to China and the Philippines in the east before the 5th century, all of which were untouched by the inroads of corruption that so affected the European church.

Ok brakelite...you get an A for Church history. (and, sorry if that is heard cynically...I don't mean for it to) Really, I can tell you know your stuff in this area. Thanks for bringing it here.

But here's the deal - maybe I'm alone in this...but I know NONE of those "denominations" around my fairly major urban area that I live in here in the USofA. So...I hear 'ya...but in reality, you're talking about a small portion of the "church"'s population, especially in the Western world. Anyways, here in the developed world, we may have revolted from their evil ways a couple hundred years ago...but we inherited their Church system in many ways. I'm sure that's a part of Church history that you're well aware of.

Today, it is true that there is much division. But don't be so quick to blame sola scriptura. Rather, I think the blame should be directed more at those individuals and churches who while proclaiming sola scriptura do in fact still cling to many of the corruptions and traditions of the papacy and have not fully "come out of her".

and therein lies the problem, brakelite. The problem being: those who claim sola scripture, never in fact truly live that way. All people allow influence into their lives. All people - even those who claim to reject "authority" or "authority figures", in fact, find them and adhere to them.

So again, the problem is not "authority" vs. "go it alone"...the issue is how do we go about knowing what authority should be spoken into our spirituality other than simply the Holy Spirit. And, I apologize in advance for saying "simply" when it comes to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is, and always should be, our primary influence and teacher. The Trinity, is our true teacher. But, being that we are all humans, and will also bring in other strong authorities into our spirituality, this is where it gets potentially trickier.

You are right to say that the real problem is heretical thought. But, those heresies were taught by "very spiritual people", and people who may be seen by men as "called forth by God". Thus, we willingly come under their tutelage. And very often, at our peril.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matthew 10:36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

I think everything seems to be working out just fine.
I also tend to throw Constantine under the bus but then yank him back as the bus pulls out.It was a good move on his part but he had to give many concessions to the craftsmen and merchants.You didn't think those idol salesmen would just vanish did you?Christianity was greatly paganized during the late 300's.And dare I say still is today.
God used Constantine to plant good seed along with the bad.
Remember this universe/realm runs on good and evil.

The cryptic nature of scripture itself presents many problems.
Many things are spiritual and must be spiritually discerned.
Things taken too literally can have some pretty wacky results.

I would think that we should be able to understand the main message of God(a new path of love and faith) through the gospels themselves.All the rest is icing on the cake.

Notice the warning at the beginning of Matthew 16,The context is a warning to avoid the yeast of the Pharisees.Jesus knew that his "way" would be injected with yeast.Then we see a humorous scene where the Apostles are clueless about what he is talking about and relate it to buying bread.At that point they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

 

[jari]

Joh 17:20-22 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:



Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

 

[David777]

Dear S.I.E

During the first, second and third centuries there were 100's of letters written between Churches. These letters are not included in the Bible, although they contain numerous quotes, and references to Jesus.

It would be simplistic to imagine that because the Bible had not yet been assembled that the apostles letters were unavailable! Rather there was a wealth of information on the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the second century. How much was transmitted by word of mouth!

Constantine's conversion was political but is powerful evidence that the Gospel was firmly established in Roman society by the fourth century.

Not having a complete Bible does not chain the Gospel, rather it is enhanced by the power of God.