Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[TCGreek]

In regard to Sola Scriptura, It would be better to first attack its origins.

Since my excommunication from Faith Baptist Church for leaving and attending a Methodist Church (yes, I have the letter), I’ve been studying Roman Theology and that’s been a few years. Since I’ve turned my attention to the Eastern Orthodox Church and have followed the progression of the Western Church, I’m first glad to have not made any hasty decisions to reconcile with The Western Church.

Now I can somewhat understand Luther’s cry of Sola Scriptura in light of the corruption in the Roman Church at that time; the degenerated teachings that it promoted and the distorted understanding of tradition that it used to defend itself and along with the fact that the Western Roman Church was several centuries removed from any significant contact with their former Orthodox heritage. How could you blame Luther? How else could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these abuses, when tradition, as all in the Western Church were led to believe was personified by the very papacy that were responsible for those abuses.

For Luther’s only choice if he were to reform the Western Church, he had to use Scripture to get rid of the Roman traditions that were now corrupt. Unfortunately, Luther’s rhetoric far outstripped his own practices, and more radical reformers took the idea of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions.

The end result is an innumerable list of denominations, all of which claim to represent true Christianity. Every brand name has essentially split itself into several competing fractions. Since this is a Baptist Board, look at the number of Baptist fractions: Southern, Seventh Day, American, National, General, Particular, Regular, Primitive, Landmark, Conservative, Free Will and the Independent Fundamentalist which will have nothing to do with the others b/c they’re not truly Christian.

Primitive Baptist’s are strict Calvinist, while some Free Willers are strict Arminians and the Southern Baptists can’t make up their minds, yet all claim Sola Scriptura as a source of authority. Calvinist and Arminians cannot both be right…all the dialectic in the world cannot reconcile to two theological thoughts.

Is Christ divided?
-

1. Is sola scriptura a claim that the Bible makes of itself?

2. You are committing a serious fallacy in your argument:

a. Protestants claim sola scriptura.

b. Protestants are divided.

c. therefore, sola scriptura is invalid.

3. But it seems like you have problem with Baptists as well. It is unfortunate that you were excommunicated because you visited a Methodist church. Sorry about that. I believe that church was wrong for doing that. Just my take.

4. If you don't mind me asking, Where do you go to church now?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

1. Is sola scriptura a claim that the Bible makes of itself?

No, the Bible makes no such claim

2. You are committing a serious fallacy in your argument:

a. Protestants claim sola scriptura.

b. Protestants are divided.

You making the claim that Protestantism aren’t divided; please explain how they’re in unity? If unity you mean by that of belief in the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, then yes. But façade of orthodoxy is just a framework that’s built upon a shaky foundation of individualism and subjectivism. Some mainline Protestant denominations have already collapsed in on themselves and can hardly be recognizable as Christian. Heck, even some Methodist and S. Baptist’s I happened across are starting to question the Virgin Birth of Christ!

c. therefore, sola scriptura is invalid.
3. But it seems like you have problem with Baptists as well.

My problem isn’t with the Baptists; it’s with the division within Protestantism. The Church is a divine human Mystery, the Mystery of the Trinitarian Life…that they may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee…that they may be one even as We are one (John 17:21-22).
As a Baptist I used to door knock…”soul winning”, I happened across a Jehovah’s Witness and we went at it with Scripture, back and forth, we got nowhere in the discussion, b/c essentially we both agreed on our approach to Scripture. Since neither of us ever questioned our underlying common assumption, neither of us saw how mutually flawed our approach to the Scriptures were

It is unfortunate that you were excommunicated because you visited a Methodist church. Sorry about that. I believe that church was wrong for doing that. Just my take.

Being excommunicated wasn’t a bad thing, after all when I moved from my home town and joined this particular Church, since I was Sothern Baptist, I had to be “voted” into the fold by the deacons…The Church was nothing more than a social club anyway, divided into certain “clicks”.

4. If you don't mind me asking, Where do you go to church now?

St. George Orthodox Christian Cathedral here in Wichita, KS.

 

[TCGreek]

No, the Bible makes no such claim

1. Since Scripture makes no such claim of itself as being our sole authority of faith and practice, Where then should we look for additional authorith of faith and practice?

You making the claim that Protestantism aren’t divided; please explain how they’re in unity? If unity you mean by that of belief in the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, then yes. But façade of orthodoxy is just a framework that’s built upon a shaky foundation of individualism and subjectivism. Some mainline Protestant denominations have already collapsed in on themselves and can hardly be recognizable as Christian. Heck, even some Methodist and S. Baptist’s I happened across are starting to question the Virgin Birth of Christ!

2. I have never claimed that evangelicals aren't divided.

3. A church that questions what is clearly taught in Scripture and is essential to historic, NT Christianity is not a failure on sola scriptura. That's that church's problem.

4. Christ spoke of false prophets, so did Paul and the other NT writers. A defection from NT Christian should come as no surprise to us.

My problem isn’t with the Baptists; it’s with the division within Protestantism. The Church is a divine human Mystery, the Mystery of the Trinitarian Life…that they may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee…that they may be one even as We are one (John 17:21-22).
As a Baptist I used to door knock…”soul winning”, I happened across a Jehovah’s Witness and we went at it with Scripture, back and forth, we got nowhere in the discussion, b/c essentially we both agreed on our approach to Scripture. Since neither of us ever questioned our underlying common assumption, neither of us saw how mutually flawed our approach to the Scriptures were.

5. My own conclusion on the various denominations is not to attack sola scriptura but rather to properly diagnose the problem, the problem being our human limitations.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But Scripture itself does not claim this - eg: you can't quote II Tim 3:16 without balancing it with I Tim 3:15

Let's have a look see, shall we?

2 Tim 3
"13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."


1 Tim 3
13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


These are the two Scriptures you gave reference to in their relative context. So what is the point you wish to make?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

In regard to Sola Scriptura, It would be better to first attack its origins.

Since my excommunication from Faith Baptist Church for leaving and attending a Methodist Church (yes, I have the letter), I’ve been studying Roman Theology and that’s been a few years. Since I’ve turned my attention to the Eastern Orthodox Church and have followed the progression of the Western Church, I’m first glad to have not made any hasty decisions to reconcile with The Western Church.

Now I can somewhat understand Luther’s cry of Sola Scriptura in light of the corruption in the Roman Church at that time; the degenerated teachings that it promoted and the distorted understanding of tradition that it used to defend itself and along with the fact that the Western Roman Church was several centuries removed from any significant contact with their former Orthodox heritage. How could you blame Luther? How else could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these abuses, when tradition, as all in the Western Church were led to believe was personified by the very papacy that were responsible for those abuses.

For Luther’s only choice if he were to reform the Western Church, he had to use Scripture to get rid of the Roman traditions that were now corrupt. Unfortunately, Luther’s rhetoric far outstripped his own practices, and more radical reformers took the idea of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions.

The end result is an innumerable list of denominations, all of which claim to represent true Christianity. Every brand name has essentially split itself into several competing fractions. Since this is a Baptist Board, look at the number of Baptist fractions: Southern, Seventh Day, American, National, General, Particular, Regular, Primitive, Landmark, Conservative, Free Will and the Independent Fundamentalist which will have nothing to do with the others b/c they’re not truly Christian.

Primitive Baptist’s are strict Calvinist, while some Free Willers are strict Arminians and the Southern Baptists can’t make up their minds, yet all claim Sola Scriptura as a source of authority. Calvinist and Arminians cannot both be right…all the dialectic in the world cannot reconcile to two theological thoughts.

Is Christ divided?
-

I have seen this type of reasoning before and its faulty for a number of reasons. It presupposes a disfellowship in the spirit because of an ecclesiastical separation. i.e. Baptists and Presbyterians. They disagree over the mode and proper subject of baptism. Does this mean that one is saying they are the only true Christian church and the others are not? A resounding NO.

We must not make the mistake of seeing different baptist congregations i.e. SBC and say, Reformed Baptists, as seeing one another as false churches, false brethren. This is simply not the case. Calvinists and Arminians may differ as to the scope of the atonement, but they do not differ as to the mystery of godliness. There is far more unity among the denominations that you have been led to believe.

Friend, you are making too much of different Christian denominations.

 

[Matt Black]

Let's have a look see, shall we?

2 Tim 3
"13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."


1 Tim 3
13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


These are the two Scriptures you gave reference to in their relative context. So what is the point you wish to make?

Pick out the word 'alone' in II Tim 3 from which you quoted above. Problem? Remember that, like the Bereans, Timothy would only have had the OT, so I make the same point to you as I did to Mr Lamb elsewhere*. Finally, place the passage alongside that one from I Tim 3, where The Church is the pillar and foundation of The Truth.

We must not make the mistake of seeing different baptist congregations i.e. SBC and say, Reformed Baptists, as seeing one another as false churches, false brethren. This is simply not the case. Calvinists and Arminians may differ as to the scope of the atonement, but they do not differ as to the mystery of godliness. There is far more unity among the denominations that you have been led to believe.

Friend, you are making too much of different Christian denominations.

Not really, no: a strict 5-point Calvinist for example believes that his all-powerful God only loves some people and predestines others to eternal punishment; an Arminian OTOH believes that his God loves everybody but is unable to save all of them. These two views of 'God' are so divergent as to amount to two distinct deities.

So, don't tell me that these divisions 'don't matter'; on the contrary, they are utterly pertinent.

*Here:-

On that basis then, given that the Bereans studied only the OT, we should all adhere to the doctrine of "sola-Old-Testament" as being "sufficient for salvation". OK, then, I'm off home to rip out those last 27 books from my Bible, including all those quotes from that pesky person Jesus.

 

[BobRyan]

Matt Black
... homing in in particular on the issue of Scriptural interpretation, there's an interesting couple of threads (started by moi, he said modestly!) here and here On the 'Bible as sacrament' thread, read the last couple of pages in particular. From this you will notice that "the Bible as a whole DOES NOT speak for itself" where interpretation is concerned; if it did, we'd all agree. For instance, how do you interpret I Peter 3:21? How does a Catholic interpret it? Same verse, different views - and that's just one verse! And what about I Cor 12-14 ref spiritual gifts - a cessationist is going to have a very different view of this than a charismatic. Or take this quote from Ron Sider:-

"Social activists quote Luke 4:16ff to prove that faithful Christians, like Jesus, must meet the physical needs

"Sola Scriptura" is a Bible based doctrinal position seen clearly in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul WERE SO".

(And "yes" I know that some people on this board don't like using scripture found in acts to prove doctrine) - but we can show from scripture that it was proved practice among the saints.

However "IF" as Matt suggests the mere existence of difference of opinion on any one doctrine is sufficient proof that the practice, tradition, doctrine is not valid -- then NO doctrine and NO tradition in the Catholic church is correct!

However the "existence" of disputes and dissenting opinion has NEVER been the "proof" of the failing of that doctrine. In fact if anything it is MORE true that the "popular acceptance" (as in the days of Christ regarding Jewish myths about the messiah) is much MORE the sign of a teaching being in error. Truth - inconvenient truth - has always been unpopular in all ages.

In John 16 God says HE will "Lead us into all truth" but "people differ" in their doctrinal views so "everybody go find the Pope in their denomination to tell thm what to think"???

What kind of solution is THAT??

Why do Catholics think that it SOLVES some problem for the RCC to say that everybody needs to have a pope in their denomination's magesterium telling them what to think??

How is that solving anything??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Pick out the word 'alone' in II Tim 3 from which you quoted above. Problem? Remember that, like the Bereans, Timothy would only have had the OT, so I make the same point to you as I did to Mr Lamb elsewhere*.

Here is where you miss the point entirely. There is NO SUCH THING in the NT text as "Scriptrues as we have them today - OT - are INSUFFICIENT".

You simply imagine that as a NT doctrine or teaching and then you make the argument above.

But by CONTRAST - in 2Tim 3 Paul argues that SCRIPTURE (and as you point out - this is primary reference to the OT) IS SUFFICIENT.

You simply read that and say "oh no it was not sufficient Paul because LOOK now we have the NT AS WELL".

But that is NOT a valid argument against what Paul said.

Paul never said "everyone keep limping along with just the OT to guide you until one day the LAST letter of the NT will be written and then FINALLY you will have scripture that is SUFFICIENT to lead to salvation".

Arguments promoting that logic fall flat.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Thank you for proving my point - there is no text in the Scriptures which says that the OT and NT alone are sufficient.

QED. Thanks for that Bob!

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you for proving my point - there is no text in the Scriptures which says that the OT and NT alone are sufficient.

QED. Thanks for that Bob!

that is not a quote of me nor a quote of 2Tim 3 -- in fact it is an exact contradiction of 2Tim 3.

Which brings up another point in this dicussion - the steps that one needs to take to distance themselves from the Acts 17:11 and 2Tim 3 teaching on sola scriptura are the same steps that leads to "ignoring the inconvenient details of scripture" ignoring exegetical review as proof for a doctrinal point of view and simply "making claims" instead, claims that are often in the form of bold contradictions to what the scripture in question has just said.

I find that instructive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

that is not a quote of me nor a quote of 2Tim 3 -- in fact it is an exact contradiction of 2Tim 3.

In what way? II Tim 3 makes no reference to the NT.

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you for proving my point - there is no text in the Scriptures which says that the OT and NT alone are sufficient.

QED. Thanks for that Bob!

I misread your post on this point. I was in error.

You are addressing the point that some here DO argue "The OT is INSUFFICIENT" and are pointing out that this is not supported by 2Tim 3.

I would agree with you on that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Sola Scriptura comes from the fundamental Truth itself.

God is the Word ( Jn 1:1-2)

Bible is the Words of God.

Ignorance about the Words of God means Ignorance about God.

God is the Only Truth.

No human being can teach God.

What is contradictory to Words of God is false.

No human being is Infallible.

Nothing other than Words of God is Infallible.

Nothing other than the Bible is Infallible.

Therefore Only the Scripture is True and can teach the Believers the Infallible Truth.

If any writings like Apocrypha or ECF's writings contradict the Scripture, they are false and wrong, and are heresies.

If any writings like Apocrypha or ECF's writings coincide with the Scripture, then the Believers do not need them as the Scripture is enough.

2 Tim 3
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Why do we need anything else than the Scripture for Spiritual Perfection?


We can safely conclude that Denial of Sola Scripture means the Confession of NO Salvation.

 

[Matt Black]

I misread your post on this point. I was in error.

You are addressing the point that some here DO argue "The OT is INSUFFICIENT" and are pointing out that this is not supported by 2Tim 3.

I would agree with you on that.

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks Bob; I'd say the same about the Bereans in Acts 17

 

[Matt Black]

Sola Scriptura comes from the fundamental Truth itself.

God is the Word ( Jn 1:1-2)

Bible is the Words of God.

Ignorance about the Words of God means Ignorance about God.

God is the Only Truth.

No human being can teach God.

What is contradictory to Words of God is false.

No human being is Infallible.

Nothing other than Words of God is Infallible.

Nothing other than the Bible is Infallible.

Therefore Only the Scripture is True and can teach the Believers the Infallible Truth.

If any writings like Apocrypha or ECF's writings contradict the Scripture, they are false and wrong, and are heresies.

If any writings like Apocrypha or ECF's writings coincide with the Scripture, then the Believers do not need them as the Scripture is enough.

2 Tim 3
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Why do we need anything else than the Scripture for Spiritual Perfection?

Except, as has already been demonstrated, II Tim 3 does not prove Sola Scriptura

We can safely conclude that

Denial of Sola Scripture means the Confession of NO Salvation.

Except - It - Does - Not - Work. "Safely", eh?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Pick out the word 'alone' in II Tim 3 from which you quoted above. Problem? Remember that, like the Bereans, Timothy would only have had the OT, so I make the same point to you as I did to Mr Lamb elsewhere*. Finally, place the passage alongside that one from I Tim 3, where The Church is the pillar and foundation of The Truth.

I see no problem not find a particular "word" like alone in the passage. Sola Scriptura is a theological phrase. Surely your not going to make the error of wrangling about a word. The passage in question describes the sufficiency of Scripture and has nothing else in view. The error I keep seeing advocates of another authority equal to Scripture make (their so-called Tradition) is to assume that the Apostles taught something differently orally than what is written. The fact remains that ALL Scripture is sufficient to do those things described by the Holy Spirit in this passage, which includes the NT because it is Scripture, as Peter teaches...unless you are denying the NT is Scripture?

Not really, no: a strict 5-point Calvinist for example believes that his all-powerful God only loves some people and predestines others to eternal punishment; an Arminian OTOH believes that his God loves everybody but is unable to save all of them. These two views of 'God' are so divergent as to amount to two distinct deities.

That is something you have created. I do not for one second believe that my evangelical arminian BRETHREN are serving a false God like the mormons or JWs do. The views are two distinct understanding of the ONE salvation we commonly share. You sir, are sowing division between brethren that we would not sow.

So, don't tell me that these divisions 'don't matter'; on the contrary, they are utterly pertinent.

I didn't say they didn't matter. I said in regards to our communinon, which is with the Father and the Son, we have like precious faith. You sir, are sowing division between brethren. Please stop it.

 

[Matt Black]

No dissension sown; just based on observing debates between Arminian and Calvinist brethren on this board over the years.

The NT did not exist at the time Paul wrote those words you quote, therefore how on earth could he be referring to anything other than the OT by his word 'Scripture'.

BTW - 'words' are important - I thought we all believed that the Bible was the Word of God?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No dissension sown; just based on observing debates between Arminian and Calvinist brethren on this board over the years.

The NT did not exist at the time Paul wrote those words you quote, therefore how on earth could he be referring to anything other than the OT by his word 'Scripture'.

BTW - 'words' are important - I thought we all believed that the Bible was the Word of God?

You may not think so Matt, but that is the impression you have given me. You, sir, have told me that my evangelical arminian brother is serving another deity, thus making him an idolator and an unregenerate reprobate. If I were with such a one in his congregation I, based on your testimony, I should not share the Lord's Table with him. That is sowing quite a rift that does not exist between me and my brother. So I really wish you would stop, or at least reconsider your position and rhetoric.

That Paul was referring to OT Scriptures I have no issue with. Yet this does not take away our defense of the sufficiency that ALL Scripture is sufficient, including the NT, unless one is denying the NT writings are Scripture. All Scripture is God-breathed, and if what the Apostle was writinig here, including what he had written previously, and what would be written in the future is God-breathed, then it is Scripture and therefore properly falls within 2 Tim 3:16. One has to deny the NT is Scripture to ultimately exclude it. Therefore, all Scripture is sufficient, being able to do those things described in the passage.

Do you really believe by my statement that I think words are not important? Did you not recognize where I would go with that had I explained myself further? Let me explain myself further:

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." 1 Timothy 6:3-5

If I thought you were, I would obey the Apostle's commandment and withdraw from you. Surely we are not going to wrangle about the nature of God merely because the theological term "Trinity" appears in no place of Scripture. Neither do I think we should spend 1 second of time debating about Sola Scriptura because those words are not found in Scripture, or the word "alone" is not in 2 Tim 3:16

 

[Matt Black]

You may not think so Matt, but that is the impression you have given me. You, sir, have told me that my evangelical arminian brother is serving another deity, thus making him an idolator and an unregenerate reprobate. If I were with such a one in his congregation I, based on your testimony, I should not share the Lord's Table with him. That is sowing quite a rift that does not exist between me and my brother. So I really wish you would stop, or at least reconsider your position and rhetoric.

Like I said, I'm merely commenting on what I've observed here. I am quite happy to be disabused of this notion if those who made the numerous earlier statements mutually anathematising each other will retract.

That Paul was referring to OT Scriptures I have no issue with.

OK

Yet this does not take away our defense of the sufficiency that ALL Scripture is sufficient, including the NT,

How on earth do you get from "Paul was referring to OT Scriptures [in II Tim 3:15-16]" to "ALL Scripture is sufficient, including the NT"?!

unless one is denying the NT writings are Scripture.

Not for one second. I just can't see how you can say that Paul was saying to Timothy that the New Testament was "sufficient".

All Scripture is God-breathed, and if what the Apostle was writinig here, including what he had written previously, and what would be written in the future is God-breathed, then it is Scripture and therefore properly falls within 2 Tim 3:16. One has to deny the NT is Scripture to ultimately exclude it. Therefore, all Scripture is sufficient, being able to do those things described in the passage.

A logical fallacy, unfortunately, although I see where you're argument is coming from. I reiterate: at the time of writing of II Tim 3, most of the NT had not been written, therefore it is impossible for Paul to be referring to the rest of the NT; the canon wasn't decided until the end of the 4th century.

 

[Eliyahu]

When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3, Only the OT was taken as Bible.
However, it didn't pre-suppose any exclusion of any further Bible, NT.

OT is the Words of God

NT is the Words of God.

Bible is enough to teach the Believers. to save the unbelievers to the Salvation thru Repentance.