. . . Sola Scriptura . . . .

[37818]

While there is a history and a lot of debate on both sides of the argument, there is one key basis for the concept of "sola scriptura." That the written documents which make up the 66 book Bible are regarded as the word from God. Now God is inerrant. So unless one is asserting other sources which are the word of God, then Sola Scriptura stands.

Here it is, those who deny Sola Scriptura are claiming other special revelation from God regading Jesus of Nazareth being the Lord and Christ.

Fact, all professing Christians make some kind of claims regarding the 66 book Bible. Every professing Christian group makes some kind of appeal to those (66) written Scriptures for their authority. There are no exceptions.

 

[Reformed]

17-century Particular Baptists posited Sola Scriptura in this way in the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith:

1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 )

4._____ The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
( 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9 )

9._____The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.
( 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16)

10.____The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23)

 

[Walter]

Google "Church Fathers infant Baptism" or on any other issue and you will get huge amounts of historical information about the earliest Christian Church and its beliefs.
Are you a first century Palestinian convert from Judaism? Maybe you're a second century Christian like St Ignatius of Antioch who was taught by St John the Apostle and ordained by St Peter? Were you at the Councils that compiled the canon of the New Testament? No? Well good news, we have all these historical writings.
If you're not reading the writings of the early Church how can you have any hope of getting a proper understanding of Scripture? Interpreting the Bible through the lens of the same men who were hand-picked heirs to the Apostles is absolutely necessary historical and theological context 2000 years later.
The Church Fathers writings are not canon, but they are the context necessary to properly understand Scripture and keep your interpretation in line with the teachings of the Apostles taught to the early Church. We don't have to guess what the early Church was like, we have huge volumes of their writings - and they were very Catholic. The same bishops from the early Church that compiled the Bible were not Protestant, they actually wrote and believe very Catholic things about the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, sacraments etc.
Sure, there are individual Church Fathers who floated some unusual ideas, but remember at that stage, doctrines like the Trinity hadn't even been fully expressed or defined and they couldn't benefit from centuries of thought like we can. This is why we look to the "sensus fidelium" and not any individual Church Father, because they are not individually infallible, but only as a group when there is a consensus.
If two people in the 21st century are disputing an interpretation in Scripture, we should use the Scriptural model of resolution: "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the CHURCH; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector” Mt 18:15
Doesn't this verse rest on the assumption of there being a single, visible, unified Church government capable of resolving disputes? Or else whose church do we take it too? Life Baptist Church on the corner or the one true Church of EpiscoPresbyLuthernism?
Imagine if Jesus really did just hand the Apostles a book and said to them, "you and your successors will schism and argue about how to interpret this for two millennia and this kinda confused church I'm starting is really just a loose invisible thing that your appointed successors will have no authority over because "muh sola scriptura".
I certainly prefer the Catholic interpretation of the Church as being a visible, hierarchical organisation united in doctrine and the Sacraments through all human history in all places, much like the prototype in Scripture given of the government and visible Church of Moses and Aaron:
As opposed to "Truly, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will NOT prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you BIND on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you LOOSE on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

 

[Adonia]

Oh no, not again???????

 

[Reformed]

I do wonder why this thread was placed in this forum. The only thing it does is give Roman Catholics agita. The fact that both sides disagree on this issue is just complicating the obvious.

 

[Adonia]

Imagine if Jesus really did just hand the Apostles a book and said to them, "you and your successors will schism and argue about how to interpret this for two millennia and this kinda confused church I'm starting is really just a loose invisible thing that your appointed successors will have no authority over because "muh sola scriptura".

He wouldn't have even needed the Apostles. Jesus just would have wrote "the book" in the back room of his Dad's workshop, in between making the table and the chairs that went with it. When it was done and after his death and resurrection he would have just had multiple copies made and that would have been it in a nutshell!

 

[Adonia]

I certainly prefer the Catholic interpretation of the Church as being a visible, hierarchical organisation united in doctrine and the Sacraments through all human history in all places, much like the prototype in Scripture given of the government and visible Church of Moses and Aaron:

And you would be correct Wilbur. What were St. Paul's letters to the outlying church's if not a hierarchical leader of the Church telling the satellite church's where they were going wrong and how they needed to get with the correct program?

Those churches in Corinth and elsewhere were not "free and independent" entities where they would decide things for themselves. No sir, they were part of one existing church and they needed to follow the exhortations of those in authority over them - and that would be real live people, not just the words written on parchment that they would interpret for themselves.

 

[37818]

Google "Church Fathers infant Baptism" or on any other issue and you will get huge amounts of historical information about the earliest Christian Church and its beliefs.
Are you a first century Palestinian convert from Judaism? Maybe you're a second century Christian like St Ignatius of Antioch who was taught by St John the Apostle and ordained by St Peter? Were you at the Councils that compiled the canon of the New Testament? No? Well good news, we have all these historical writings.
If you're not reading the writings of the early Church how can you have any hope of getting a proper understanding of Scripture? Interpreting the Bible through the lens of the same men who were hand-picked heirs to the Apostles is absolutely necessary historical and theological context 2000 years later.
The Church Fathers writings are not canon, but they are the context necessary to properly understand Scripture and keep your interpretation in line with the teachings of the Apostles taught to the early Church. We don't have to guess what the early Church was like, we have huge volumes of their writings - and they were very Catholic. The same bishops from the early Church that compiled the Bible were not Protestant, they actually wrote and believe very Catholic things about the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, sacraments etc.
Sure, there are individual Church Fathers who floated some unusual ideas, but remember at that stage, doctrines like the Trinity hadn't even been fully expressed or defined and they couldn't benefit from centuries of thought like we can. This is why we look to the "sensus fidelium" and not any individual Church Father, because they are not individually infallible, but only as a group when there is a consensus.
If two people in the 21st century are disputing an interpretation in Scripture, we should use the Scriptural model of resolution: "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the CHURCH; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector” Mt 18:15
Doesn't this verse rest on the assumption of there being a single, visible, unified Church government capable of resolving disputes? Or else whose church do we take it too? Life Baptist Church on the corner or the one true Church of EpiscoPresbyLuthernism?
Imagine if Jesus really did just hand the Apostles a book and said to them, "you and your successors will schism and argue about how to interpret this for two millennia and this kinda confused church I'm starting is really just a loose invisible thing that your appointed successors will have no authority over because "muh sola scriptura".
I certainly prefer the Catholic interpretation of the Church as being a visible, hierarchical organisation united in doctrine and the Sacraments through all human history in all places, much like the prototype in Scripture given of the government and visible Church of Moses and Aaron:
As opposed to "Truly, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will NOT prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you BIND on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you LOOSE on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

You did not refute, but affirmed the following, (making arguments citing Matthew 18: and Matthew 16:18-19 which preceded any claims made using them).

Every professing Christian group makes some kind of appeal to those (66) written Scriptures for their authority. There are no exceptions.

 

[37818]

I do wonder why this thread was placed in this forum. The only thing it does is give Roman Catholics agita. The fact that both sides disagree on this issue is just complicating the obvious.

Post #8.

 

[37818]

And you would be correct Wilbur. What were St. Paul's letters to the outlying church's if not a hierarchical leader of the Church telling the satellite church's where they were going wrong and how they needed to get with the correct program?

Those churches in Corinth and elsewhere were not "free and independent" entities where they would decide things for themselves. No sir, they were part of one existing church and they needed to follow the exhortations of those in authority over them - and that would be real live people, not just the words written on parchment that they would interpret for themselves.

When the Apostle Paul wrote, the New Testament was yet being written. The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1-3) was not yet given with its seal saying, (Revelation 22:18-19) ". . . For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, . . ." The Proverb 30:6 warns against those who would falsely add to God's words, ". . . Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. . . ."

 

[utilyan]

While there is a history and a lot of debate on both sides of the argument, there is one key basis for the concept of "sola scriptura." That the written documents which make up the 66 book Bible are regarded as the word from God. Now God is inerrant. So unless one is asserting other sources which are the word of God, then Sola Scriptura stands.

Here it is, those who deny Sola Scriptura are claiming other special revelation from God regading Jesus of Nazareth being the Lord and Christ.

Fact, all professing Christians make some kind of claims regarding the 66 book Bible. Every professing Christian group makes some kind of appeal to those (66) written Scriptures for their authority. There are no exceptions.

"So unless one is asserting other sources which are the word of God, then Sola Scriptura stands. "
". Every professing Christian group makes some kind of appeal to those (66) written Scriptures for their authority. There are no exceptions."

Yes the majority of Christians say it is the CHURCH. Want to vote and hold council? we got 1.2 billion voting you are wrong. Not to mention the Orthodox and the Anglicans.

The issue of SOLA SCRIPTURA is the easiest issue of all. All you had to do is provide a verse that actually teaches it.

But since it is a FALSE doctrine, UNBIBLICAL, it has only help splinter Christianity further.


We are bible believers. We believe the scripture is TRUE. We DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Sola Scriptura is FAKE, A LIE. Never taught in scripture. Put that verse in my hand.

Don't give me anything about scripture being HELPFUL, PROFITABLE, TRUE, BREATHED ON by GOD. We already know it is which is why we don't accept YOUR FALSE DOCTRINE.


Its like if you ordered a Cheese burger. They hand you a bun some cheese, ketchup, mayo, no beef patty.

WHERE'S THE BEEF!?

Well don't you like the bun? don't you like the cheese? You got a problem with ketchup? Don't you know Cheeseburgers are great? You must have a problem and not like cheeseburgers......
No the issue is where is the beef!?

That is exactly what you sound like when you don't give us a verse that teaches SOLA SCRIPTURA. And you never do.


Never mind inspired or even dictate, We even come out and say GOD is AUTHOR of THE BIBLE and the BIBLE is the BODY OF CHRIST.

Show me your false teaching. GIVE ME THE VERSE.

 

[utilyan]

I do wonder why this thread was placed in this forum. The only thing it does is give Roman Catholics agita. The fact that both sides disagree on this issue is just complicating the obvious.

We will forever STEAMROLL right over you guys here. Because your man made traditional and foundational rule is completely UNBIBLICAL.

Ignorance is the only fuel that keeps sola scriptura alive. The TRUTH will kill it.

 

[Reformed]

Post #8.

Which proves my point. Adonia and Walter are Roman Catholics. Of course, they are going to disagree with Sola Scriptura. Roman Catholic theology demands that they do.

 

[utilyan]

Which proves my point. Adonia and Walter are Roman Catholics. Of course, they are going to disagree with Sola Scriptura. Roman Catholic theology demands that they do.

You can fix this real quick. Show us the bible verse that teaches it.

We believe the scripture is TRUE. Scripture is PERFECT. Scripture is GOD BREATHED. One should not go BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN with false teachings.

So show us where the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura.

 

[37818]

Which proves my point. Adonia and Walter are Roman Catholics. Of course, they are going to disagree with Sola Scriptura. Roman Catholic theology demands that they do.

Yes. Yet, nonetheless, Roman Catholic theology cite from those very Scriptures to justify its teachings. So it also stands by denying "Sola Scriptura" they are effectively alleging some other source for the words from God in matters of faith and practice. And that is besides differences in understanding cited Bible.

Remember Jesus in dealing with the Devil cited Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, ". . . said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Yet the argument is on the interpretation of cited Holy Scripture from those 66 books. Not any uncited other words from God.

 

[Reformed]

Yes. Yet, nonetheless, Roman Catholic theology cite from those very Scriptures to justify its teachings. So it also stands by denying "Sola Scriptura" they are effectively alleging some other source for the words from God in matters of faith and practice. And that is besides differences in understanding cited Bible.

Remember Jesus in dealing with the Devil cited Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, ". . . said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Yet the argument is on the interpretation of cited Holy Scripture from those 66 books. Not any uncited other words from God.

Roman Catholicism has never denied that scripture is a sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. It denies that only scripture is the sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Roman Catholicism places equal weight on church tradition, papal decree, and the conclusions of church councils. All of these things are intertwined which makes it difficult for even a faithful Roman Catholic to understand everything Rome teaches. This is why I try and avoid a point-by-point debate with Roman Catholics on Sola Scriptura, apostolic succession, the veneration of Mary et. al. As a former Roman Catholic, I was quite adept at digging in my heels and holding on to those beliefs in spite of a convincing argument from the other side. I was finally convinced of the truth by the work of the Holy Spirit through the hearing of the Gospel. Any interest I have in discussing Roman Catholic theology and practices is for apologetic reasons.

 

[utilyan]

Yes. Yet, nonetheless, Roman Catholic theology cite from those very Scriptures to justify its teachings. So it also stands by denying "Sola Scriptura" they are effectively alleging some other source for the words from God in matters of faith and practice. And that is besides differences in understanding cited Bible.

Remember Jesus in dealing with the Devil cited Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, ". . . said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Yet the argument is on the interpretation of cited Holy Scripture from those 66 books. Not any uncited other words from God.

You also have to contend with the CANON of Scripture itself too. There is no INSPIRED TABLE OF CONTENTS. Nothing you have by which you can identify the BIBLE as being the BIBLE but TRADITION.

SHOW us the BIBLE VERSE that TEACHES SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!!

What seems to be the hold up?

IT is an UNBIBLICAL FALSE TEACHING, MAN MADE TRADITION.


Matthew 23

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Jesus Recognizes the Chair of Moses. There is nothing about a chair of Moses tradition in the bible. IN the old testament there is no law or anything establishing it. The TRADITION is plainly there.

Jesus Could have said well guys therefore all that the scriptures tell you do and observe, HE DID NOT.



Right now there is an issue between us. It is a sin to add the false doctrine of sola scriptura. HOW does Jesus tell us to handle it?

Matthew 18
15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Does he say let us lets crack open the bible and look at the authority of scripture? NO.

He says take it to THE CHURCH then he DOUBLES DOWN that the CHURCH has authority to BIND AND LOOSE.

Does he say scripture will bind and loose? NEVER.

People have been duped by the great deceiver. He told you the bible teaches SOLA SCRIPTURA.

Ask that deceiver to put the verse in your hands. DEFEND THE TRUTH of the WORD OF GOD.

 

[37818]

Roman Catholicism has never denied that scripture is a sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. It denies that only scripture is the sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Roman Catholicism places equal weight on church tradition, papal decree, and the conclusions of church councils. All of these things are intertwined which makes it difficult for even a faithful Roman Catholic to understand everything Rome teaches. This is why I try and avoid a point-by-point debate with Roman Catholics on Sola Scriptura, apostolic succession, the veneration of Mary et. al. As a former Roman Catholic, I was quite adept at digging in my heels and holding on to those beliefs in spite of a convincing argument from the other side. I was finally convinced of the truth by the work of the Holy Spirit through the hearing of the Gospel. Any interest I have in discussing Roman Catholic theology and practices is for apologetic reasons.

In other words, "Roman Catholicism places equal weight on church tradition, papal decree, and the conclusions of church councils." as inerrant words from God.

 

[utilyan]

In other words, "Roman Catholicism places equal weight on church tradition, papal decree, and the conclusions of church councils." as inerrant words from God.

The BIBLE BELIEVER believes when the bible says "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." It is not kidding around.

The UNBELIEVER cannot accept the word of scripture. The UNBELIEVER cuts out the verses he does not like and adds false teachings.

 

[Reformed]

I will amend my words "equal weight" and substitute them with "equal convenience". Depending on Rome's agenda it will make its appeal to whatever serves its purpose at the time.