The truth here is that the canon of scripture, 66 books, are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are said to contain already within them ALL that God has to say to us in all things needed for us to be taught, matured, learned up on, so there is no tradition that woudl serve as revelation outside the sacred texts, as God closed revelation down after Apostle John passed away!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture
- Thread starter herbert
- Start date
- Status
Hello to you!
I'd like to ask you about a couple things:
1. Your statement indicates that there are 66 Books in the Bible.
Where is that found in the Bible?
2. The Canon contains "'ALL' that God as to say to us in all things needed for us to be taught, matured, learned up on..."
This statement suggests that you hold to the "material sufficiency" of Scripture. I do, also. There's nothing problematic about that statement for a Catholic. It becomes problematic, however, if someone says that this task is accomplished by "Scripture Alone." For such a claim isn't even found in Scripture itself. So to which do you hold?:
1) The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
or
2) The Material Sufficiency of Scripture?
Ultimately, that is precisely the question that this conversation was started to address... So welcome!
Finally, your comment suggests that you may be operating according to an understanding of apostolic "tradition" which is inconsistent with what the Catholic Church teaches about it. Let me try to share with you my understanding of the topic as it relates to your comment above:
As I wrote above, Sacred Tradition could be described as the apostolic (and thus correct) "received understanding" of the texts of Scripture. So it is that Church teaches that revelation is "closed" whilst still holding to the idea that "Sacred Tradition" is at work in the Church ensuring that Scripture is properly understood and that Scriptural principles are rightly applied to challenging moral decisions as they arise within the human family. For example, it is the "one voice" of Scripture and Tradition which, without exception, see all efforts to clone human beings as intrinsically immoral. Cloning wasn't an issue in the First Century. But the Church has the responsibility to rightly appropriate the Scriptural deposit in today's modern technologically-advanced society.
Further, the Church teaches that there can be no more books, for example, added to the Scriptures. So Tradition can be viewed as a servant to Scripture, in a sense, which flows from, in GK Chesterton's words "...the highest mind of man guided by God." So it is that the Church teaches that, essentially, Scripture and Tradition speak with "one voice." So, for example, when Jesus said "This is my body" any number of readers may, being cut off from the correct "received understanding" of His meaning, believe Him to have meant any number of things which were not exactly what He had in mind. and when disagreement arises among Christians, to what or whom do we appeal in Christ's immediate absence as we await His Second Coming? To the Church He established, of course! And so it is that by apostolic "Sacred Tradition" we may know what the correct understanding of Our Lord's words is with the confidence and humility of Faith.
So we see three components safeguarded by the Holy Spirit as the means by which a Christian may come to recognize the true and authentic doctrines of the Faith: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church). The Magisterium is sort of like a universal Pastor, which is really a group of pastors comprised of all the bishops of the world who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ singularly gave the Keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16:18).
After all, there are indeed many passages in Scripture which are easily distorted, which is why Scripture itself records the Ethiopian Eunuch asking "How can I (understand what I am reading)unless someone explains it to me?" Further, elsewhere we read this: "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2nd Peter 3:16)
So it is that all of us Catholic, non-Catholic, Orthodox, Non-denominational, etc. each follow our unique "received understandings" of the Scriptural deposit. The question, then isn't whether or not we have Traditions (for we all do), it's whether or not the Traditions we have are apostolic, trustworthy, and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit promised to guide Christ's universal Church.
Thanks again to you for chiming in!
Herbert
I'd like to ask you about a couple things:
1. Your statement indicates that there are 66 Books in the Bible.
Where is that found in the Bible?
2. The Canon contains "'ALL' that God as to say to us in all things needed for us to be taught, matured, learned up on..."
This statement suggests that you hold to the "material sufficiency" of Scripture. I do, also. There's nothing problematic about that statement for a Catholic. It becomes problematic, however, if someone says that this task is accomplished by "Scripture Alone." For such a claim isn't even found in Scripture itself. So to which do you hold?:
1) The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
or
2) The Material Sufficiency of Scripture?
Ultimately, that is precisely the question that this conversation was started to address... So welcome!
Finally, your comment suggests that you may be operating according to an understanding of apostolic "tradition" which is inconsistent with what the Catholic Church teaches about it. Let me try to share with you my understanding of the topic as it relates to your comment above:
As I wrote above, Sacred Tradition could be described as the apostolic (and thus correct) "received understanding" of the texts of Scripture. So it is that Church teaches that revelation is "closed" whilst still holding to the idea that "Sacred Tradition" is at work in the Church ensuring that Scripture is properly understood and that Scriptural principles are rightly applied to challenging moral decisions as they arise within the human family. For example, it is the "one voice" of Scripture and Tradition which, without exception, see all efforts to clone human beings as intrinsically immoral. Cloning wasn't an issue in the First Century. But the Church has the responsibility to rightly appropriate the Scriptural deposit in today's modern technologically-advanced society.
Further, the Church teaches that there can be no more books, for example, added to the Scriptures. So Tradition can be viewed as a servant to Scripture, in a sense, which flows from, in GK Chesterton's words "...the highest mind of man guided by God." So it is that the Church teaches that, essentially, Scripture and Tradition speak with "one voice." So, for example, when Jesus said "This is my body" any number of readers may, being cut off from the correct "received understanding" of His meaning, believe Him to have meant any number of things which were not exactly what He had in mind. and when disagreement arises among Christians, to what or whom do we appeal in Christ's immediate absence as we await His Second Coming? To the Church He established, of course! And so it is that by apostolic "Sacred Tradition" we may know what the correct understanding of Our Lord's words is with the confidence and humility of Faith.
So we see three components safeguarded by the Holy Spirit as the means by which a Christian may come to recognize the true and authentic doctrines of the Faith: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church). The Magisterium is sort of like a universal Pastor, which is really a group of pastors comprised of all the bishops of the world who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ singularly gave the Keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16:18).
After all, there are indeed many passages in Scripture which are easily distorted, which is why Scripture itself records the Ethiopian Eunuch asking "How can I (understand what I am reading)unless someone explains it to me?" Further, elsewhere we read this: "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2nd Peter 3:16)
So it is that all of us Catholic, non-Catholic, Orthodox, Non-denominational, etc. each follow our unique "received understandings" of the Scriptural deposit. The question, then isn't whether or not we have Traditions (for we all do), it's whether or not the Traditions we have are apostolic, trustworthy, and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit promised to guide Christ's universal Church.
Thanks again to you for chiming in!
Herbert
Again, the Lord jesus Himself declared that the scriptures ALONE are the word of the Lord unto us, and the Apostles NEVER gave us tradition that was not recorded down in the Bib le as something that God intended to pass down to us!
The church of Rome gets a lot of this from her wrong view of Apostolic Succession, as if that were true, one might argue for tradition outside of the 66 books, but that is NOT true!
The church of Rome gets a lot of this from her wrong view of Apostolic Succession, as if that were true, one might argue for tradition outside of the 66 books, but that is NOT true!
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Herbert - I am only going to respond to one part of your post. The reason is because your posts are often long and drawn out. And the second reason is to take a part that seems to be to be best to share the gospel of Jesus with you.
I am glad that William Tyndale was faithful to the only Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, in translating the Holy Scriptures into English for which the Roman Catholic Church strangled and burned at the stake.
1 Peter 5
5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
Note:
1. The Apostle Peter does not place himself above the other apostles, but equal with them. There is no universal pope here.
2. The papacy has worked in history for filthy lucre, with her indulgences, et. Exactly what the scriptures condemn here.
3. The magesterium has sought to be lords over all mankind, exactly what the Scriptures condemn here.
4. Only Jesus Christ is the Chief Shepherd. For any man to stand in the temple of God and proclaim himself so is to usurp the place that rightly only belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the pope stands as anti-Christ. The word anti, in Greek, means substitute. And so does the Latin work vicar, as you well know. And therefore we see popes making no qualms about calling themselves Antichrist. And so has been the universal testimony of the protestant church for centuries.
5. The papacy worked in the past to suppress and keep the Word of God from the people and plunged the world in darkness, superstition, and despair. Wherever popery prevails today the same is true. It was the open of the Scriptures into the languages of the people that God used to open their eyes. It was Luther who saw in the Scriptures that a man is not justified by works but by faith. Scripture light has always prevailed against the papal error.
Herbert, the problem with what your saying is that you do not actually show that Scripture and papal tradition are speaking with one voice. The lie and deception is that the voice of the papacy is what you hear and follow, and it colors how you read and understand the Scriptures. The best evidence against papal practices are the practices themselves. No where in Scripture are these things seen. And no where in Scripture are we exhorted to any such doctrines or practices.
Friend, I tell you these things for the safety of your soul. By trusting in a system rather than Christ alone. Only He can justify a sinner by His righteousness alone. No infused, but imputed to the believer by faith alone. Friend, you will only come to know this if you submit to God alone who has shown you in Scripture alone.
66 books is all we have and need.
Hello, again-
Could you please cite anything Christ said which indicates that Scriptures "alone" are the "word of the Lord unto us"?
Further, to suggest that this is the case, it would seem that you're overlooking the Lord Himself in your effort to affirm for the Scriptures the position which you understand them to occupy. For, after all, He Himself is the Word Incarnate.
Thanks again,
Herbert
[The problem for you though is that the Church of Rome is NOT the Church that Jesus promised to build, and that there is no papacy per the Bible, nor any additional revelations given by God to us since John died...
The Catholic church actually is very close to the JW and Mormon one, as all 3 claim to be THE true church, built by Jesus, with Apostles and revelation knowledge!
The Catholic church actually is very close to the JW and Mormon one, as all 3 claim to be THE true church, built by Jesus, with Apostles and revelation knowledge!
Jesus ALWAYS quoted the OT scriptures, and NEVER the Apocraph/deutrocanoncal ones, and he saw that the OT ones were perfect in all that was recorded down, and that he gave SAME testimony to the NT yet to come, as the same Holy Spirit inspired Apostles just as he did the OT prophets!
When did Jesus EVER quote and use to answer critica anything using tradition of the Jews, and not the OT itself?
No sir! The question is whether we are constantly looking at our traditions and practices to see if they are in conformity with Scripture. If they aren't, we need to change them.
Ecclesia Reformata semper Reformanda. The Reformed church is always in need of reformation to keep it in line with the word of God. The Church of Rome is hidebound by her unbiblical traditions and is past reformation. The candlestick is removed and the sooner she disappears the better.
1. The statement above (or anything like it) is not found in Scripture.
2. The number of Scriptural texts isn't found within Scripture, either.
Therefore, yours is an extraBiblical appeal.
Herbert
Jesus always appealed to the scriptures when He revealed Himself to ppl.
I am not sure what this: "When did Jesus EVER quote and use to answer critica anything using tradition of the Jews, and not the OT itself?" means. Could you please re-phrase that?
Herbert
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,[John 5:39]
The words written of old testified about Him. He never appealled to anything other than the scriptures...Sola Scriptura.
The words written of old testified about Him. He never appealled to anything other than the scriptures...Sola Scriptura.
The RCC is on an unsustainable path, a slippery slope being anti-Sola Scriptura.
SovereignGrace,
You said: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,[John 5:39]... The words written of old testified about Him. He never appealled to anything other than the scriptures...Sola Scriptura.”
You are mistaken in believing that Christ “never appealed to anything other than” the Scriptures. He most certainly appealed to His very Self as the highest authority. For He is the Divine Son of God. He appealed to Scripture, yes. But such appeals were ultimately self-referential, just as John 5:39 indicates. So by no means was he only appealing to Scripture.
As a matter of fact, the passage you've presented is an attestation to the identity of Christ which demonstrates that Scripture, though it may be appealed to, may be wrongly appealed to. Far from being an affirmation of Sola Scriptura, then, this passage demonstrates that Scripture, in the hands of “unstable or ignorant men” may come to be abused and misinterpreted.
Thank you,
Herbert
You said: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,[John 5:39]... The words written of old testified about Him. He never appealled to anything other than the scriptures...Sola Scriptura.”
You are mistaken in believing that Christ “never appealed to anything other than” the Scriptures. He most certainly appealed to His very Self as the highest authority. For He is the Divine Son of God. He appealed to Scripture, yes. But such appeals were ultimately self-referential, just as John 5:39 indicates. So by no means was he only appealing to Scripture.
As a matter of fact, the passage you've presented is an attestation to the identity of Christ which demonstrates that Scripture, though it may be appealed to, may be wrongly appealed to. Far from being an affirmation of Sola Scriptura, then, this passage demonstrates that Scripture, in the hands of “unstable or ignorant men” may come to be abused and misinterpreted.
Thank you,
Herbert
Thank you for not taking offence at my some-times bluntly worded worded responses.
Consider an example:
John Wesley and George Whitefield were as good as friends as two men could be.
Wesley was an Arminian and Whitefield was a Calvinist, and many times they clashed over their respective theologies for each considered themselves to be the right one. However, they maintained a good fellowship with each other all the while knowing that when they got to heaven the Lord would sort it out for them.
In any debate here we would always defend our own position. I do consider what you say, but since I left the RCC I don't consider it to be correct. It is part of sola scriptura which is a part of my core belief--all things must be measured by the Bible. If there is any one verse that teaches this so clearly it is Isa.8:20
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
In responding to the above let me summarize:
1. It did appear that no matter what argument or evidence any one of us set before you, it was simply dismissed. That is not an attack on your person or intelligence. It is an observation.
2. I was afraid you would take my illustration the wrong way. I am sorry you were offended. I wasn't comparing you to an atheist or a skeptic. I was comparing you to one who refused to accept evidence no matter what the evidence was. It seems that your mind is made up. No one can convince you. Even here in this post you have pretty much indicted yourself. You just said:
"the case of a former Baptist who once believed in Sola Scriptura and who has come to acknowledge that it is not a divinely-revealed doctrine"
--By the wording of your own statement your mind is made up. Sola scriptura is not a divinely-revealed doctrine, and no matter what we say will convince you that it is.
I used the example of an atheist.
I could have used the example of a Greek teacher trying to teach a first year student the correct meaning of a word. But the first year student thinks he knows better than the teacher and rejects the evidence. He will not be convinced. All kinds of people reject evidence.
It is revealed very clearly in Isaiah 8:20.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This was written by the Lord speaking through Jeremiah:
Isaiah 8:5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,
As I have mentioned before, the phrase "thus saith the Lord," is used over 400 times in the Bible and that isn't counting the expressions such as the used above in Isa.8:5.
Sola Scriptura is about authority. The Lord speaks with authority and finality and thus it is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. There is no higher authority.
Consider:
Christ is deity. He is God.
Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
Hebrews 6:16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
It is impossible for God to lie. His word is recorded for in the Bible, and preserved for us even to this day as He has promised. Such promises make it the authoritative final decisive rule and arbitrator by which we must stand. There is no other.
If there is, then what or who is it, and how is it or or him accessed?
The only reason you believe I have a fallacious argument is because I argue from the Word itself. I have no other foundation to base my argument.
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
--Christ is my foundation, and Christ is defined by the Word of God. This is not mysticism.
That was me being polite.
Quite frankly it was you being arrogant when you previously said that sola scriptura "is not a divinely-revealed doctrine" Now that is your opinion, not fact.
If it is truth then provide the unequivocal evidence that not only me but the rest of the Baptists on this board are also wrong. I have your assertion that s.s. is wrong, but not your evidence. I only have a denial of a Biblical fact.
No, indeed. My beliefs are not based upon fallible opinion. I have been giving you scripture all the way through.
Let's consider this carefully.
1. You ought to give once again your own definition of sola scriptura so that we are not speaking past each other.
2. Here is a helpful link where Geisler breaks down sola scriptura into five basic parts. It is not so simple as one may think. http://www.equip.org/article/what-is-sola-scriptura/
3. Consider the Scripture:
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Please come to a proper understanding of this verse.
First it does not apply to individuals. If it did, it would contradict the many other scriptures in the Bible such as:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--We are constantly commanded to personally study the Word of God.
--To study, to memorize, to meditate, to "rightly divide" or "interpret," etc. Each believer has that responsibility. In fact it his obligation, not the Magesterium, or priest or any other. It is his; the believer himself that must study and interpret and in the end give an account to God for the conclusions he comes to.
Now, "no prophecy" or scripture is of Private interpretation, as it does not apply to the individual, does apply to the leaders of any given religion.
It applies to the leaders of the J.W.'s, the Mormons, the RCC, and Jim Jones who had his own private interpretation for those who followed him in drinking cyanide laced kool-aid all committing suicide in Guyana. His "private interpretation" is just as wrong as the RCC's private interpretation that they have imposed on the Catholic Church and taken away from each one to study on their own.
Thus the denial of sola scriptura.
Other supporting scripture:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
--Verse one: Some have given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. In vs. 2, they speak lies, and their consciences are seared as with a hot iron. That is, they are insensitive to sin.
Then Paul gives two examples of those sins which he calls doctrines of demons. Realize that these come from religious leaders, false teachers of the "church" that they have chosen to impose on others. Thus it has become a private interpretation of the church.
1. Forbidding to marry, or celibacy. The celibacy of the priesthood is a doctrine of demons. It is a private interpretation of the RCC not widely believed on by other Christians.
2. The second example that Paul gives are those churches who teach their congregations to abstain from certain foods. It could be akin to keeping the OT dietary lies, or today "be a vegetarian," etc. Verse 4--God has made every creature good and nothing to be refused.
In your mind it is begging the question. Perhaps if this were another topic you might have a point, but this is not just any other topic. Every argument I make is based on the Word of God.
Again the Bible says:
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
--One is to be ready with the Word of God to give an answer.
First, if I thought I had the wrong answer would I argue from that position?
Second, once the resurrection happened the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and would not die for a lie, but gave their lives at any cost. Every one of them except for John died as a martyr. They didn't debate the truth, but proclaimed it.
You don't believe in sola scriptura, why?
Is it because you do believe in the stance of the RCC, the teaching of the Catechism?
What is the primary reason? And what do you believe in now other than just a denial of sola scriptura?
I assume its validity because I believe the Bible teaches it. The Bible is my authority when it comes to doctrine. That wasn't the case when I was in the Catholic Church. When I left the RCC I was Biblically illiterate. In the RCC I was not taught the Bible but Catholicism--what are the 7 sacraments, the validity of baptism, confession, purgatory and limbo, etc. No Bible was ever used.
But tell me. How do you know if the trinity is a valid doctrine? Is it because of the teaching of the RCC or the teaching of the Bible. I was taught by both: first the RCC and then the Bible. My authority is the Bible, not the RCC. The latter may be wrong. They are fallible in all things.
But just as the trinity is proven through the Bible so is sola scriptura.
ReformedBaptist,
As a matter of history, William Tyndale was not "strangled and burned at the stake" by the "Roman Catholic Church." He was put to death by a Protestant Head of Church and State, King Henry VIII. He famously died with a prayer for the King on his lips.
Further, nothing you said represents an attempt on your part to demonstrate the legitimacy of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Instead, I see nearly everything you said as presuming the legitimacy of the very thing in question between us.
My central claim here is that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine not found in the Scriptures, revealed by an angel, spoken by a prophet, or otherwise given to us by God.
If you'd like to discuss this, or share with me why it is you disagree with that claim, I'd be happy to consider anything you have to share.
Thank you so much for your time!
Herbert
As a matter of history, William Tyndale was not "strangled and burned at the stake" by the "Roman Catholic Church." He was put to death by a Protestant Head of Church and State, King Henry VIII. He famously died with a prayer for the King on his lips.
Further, nothing you said represents an attempt on your part to demonstrate the legitimacy of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Instead, I see nearly everything you said as presuming the legitimacy of the very thing in question between us.
My central claim here is that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine not found in the Scriptures, revealed by an angel, spoken by a prophet, or otherwise given to us by God.
If you'd like to discuss this, or share with me why it is you disagree with that claim, I'd be happy to consider anything you have to share.
Thank you so much for your time!
Herbert
- Status