Sola Scriptura and the Regula Fidei

Sola ScripturaThe purpose of this very brief excerpt is to concisely and simply set forth the doctrine of Sola Scriptura over the false, modern-day evangelical doctrine of SOLO Scriptura that always seems to rise up among religious sects through church history.  Evangelicals today, for whatever reason, seem to be confusing Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura without understanding either precisely.  Those evangelicals who say they hold to the Sola Scriptura hermeneutic of the Reformation are really using the Reformed terms of the Reformation but are, in actuality, denying the authentic doctrine itself.  This is not just a play on words or some kind of semantic game.  Rather, this is a conflagration of the true doctrine, and a propagation of something the church has deemed in error by way of a faulty hermeneutic.  Hopefully the following points will clarify this and amend this theological mayhem.

It is unfortunate that false view of Sola Scriptura today is aiding the modern church in further schism, rather than unifying the church.  Sola Scriptura should not be used as a “me and my bible” hermeneutic which allows “each individual Christian” to maintain their own theological view point on a given doctrine.  That is not what the Reformers intended, and it is not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches.  If you believe that Sola Scriptura means “each individual Christian should, on an individual level, use the Bible alone in understanding and determining the corpus of biblical truth” you have completely missed the idea and point of the doctrine itself.  Many people believe that the moment they hear the word “tradition” (the “t” word) that this is a very bad thing.  They want to say “the Bible alone!  But they have missed the point again.  They believe this as a knee jerk reaction to Roman Catholicism which has a very different view of tradition than what Sola Scriptura teaches.  I want to note here and now, the Reformed position of Sola Scriptura is not, in any way, the same thing, as the view of the Roman Catholic Church’s view of Tradition PLUS Scripture as the church’s ecclesiastical authority.  Hopefully this will be made clear in a moment.

READ THE REST OF THIS GREAT ARTICLE By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Follow this link: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/McMahonSolaScriptura.htm

Lack of Scripturally proven clear teaching

"...the historic Church is found among its consistent, shared doctrines.  Doctrines that have been part of the Church from the foundation.  No one advocating the historic Christian Church & its interpretations of Scripture are "specially spiritually discern[ing]" anything OUTSIDE of Scripture.  The Church was built on Christ, the revealed Word.  The Church not only has a right but has an obligation to "pronounce condemnation" when heretics spew their lies.  Kurt, is there anything such as real heresy & a real heretic?  If so how do we know? ....The "divisions & sniping" come only when people try to lead people away from the teachings of the apostles."

Roderick, this should be an easy doctrine for you to evaluate since it is one the supposedly "historic Church" has consistently pronounced condemnation of those who did not understand God in this way: The Trinity

Does the doctrine of the Trinity fit your definition of a "consistent, shared doctrine" of the historic Church "that has been part of the Church from the foundation" and from the "teachings of the apostles?"

If your answer is "yes" (as it should be if ANY doctrine in the institutional Church is to be embraced), then

1) Show me in Scripture (Old & New Testaments) where Jesus and/or the apostles clearly taught  this apparently very important (in the eyes of those in the so-called "historic Church) "doctrine."  And if you can't (and you won't be able to), why was such a key doctrine NOT taught so clearly or meticulously by Jesus or the apostles like so many other important doctrines were to make sure we understood?

2) Why explanations (by those supposedly in the "historic Church") as to why the belief in God as a "trinity" is necessary for salvation are not found anyone in Scripture, and why then are Christian "sheep" required to accept these explanations from men for our salvation?

3) Why this most "important" of  doctrines was not  "consistently taught" by, nor accepted' by (some say forced upon) "the Church" until the 4th century?