Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Absolutely not! If so, they wouldn't have met (council). They wouldn't have considered tradition (Moses). They wouldn't have considered their experience (fruit-signs/wonders). But ultimately they wouldn't have consulted scripture. IF what you say was true. It wasn't. They stood on scripture. They said, it is written ... just like Jesus. Once they knew what had been foretold and understood it with the Spirit's help, the debate was over.

Moses went to the elders. Elijah went to the prophets of Baal. The leaders met, but the ultimate leader was the Word/scripture. From there they instruct and the "followers" are to learn. Paul uses this formula 2x in Corinthians (received/delivered and delivered/received).

The church leaders can meet in council all they want, but unless their ultimate authority is scripture, it is to no avail.

That makes no sense.

Scripture cannot make decisions. Especially when it is regarding scripture. So you can see how silly that sounds to say scripture is the authority.

Some one or some group must decide when there are disputes or direction is needed in cases of conflict especially in scriptural understanding.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
That makes no sense.

Well, it's what they did in the First Council. Scripture was the Rule. Acts 15:15. I realize that as a Catholic you must reject Sola Scriptura, but...


Scripture cannot make decisions. So you can see how silly that sounds to say scripture is the authority.

:confused:

Who said that Scripture "makes decisions?"

I think you are confusing arbitration with the Rule, at least that's the only possible way I can understand your statement.

Let's say a friendly man in blue pulls you over. He comes to your window, says "good evening" and asks for your license and registration. As he is copying some information, you ask: "What's the matter, officier?" And he replies, "My radar clocked you driving 50 MPH; did you know you were driving at that speed?" "Yes, that's probably about right." "Well, look over there, at that big white sign with the big black letters, what does it say?" "It says, MAX 35 MPH." "That's right, so you were speeding - in violation of the law." Now, in that case, the Rule of Law is used. I agree that the sign can't "make decisions" but it is the Rule which serves in the determination of whether 50 MPH is speeding in that zone. I'm hoping you'll come to understand what a Rule/Canon/norma normans is. Sola Scriptura is ENTIRELY about that.






.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Josiah said:
Let's say you get pulled over by a policeman in the city of Los Angeles, CA, USA on December 17, 2008. He got you on his radar going 70 MPH. As he pulls you over, he points to a big white sign with black letters saying, "MAX 45 MPH." I can just hear you say, "But officier, how do we know what the Law is? How do we know if this sign applies or some sign that might be errected here in the year 2345 AD or was here in the year 1800 BC?" Friend, I think there's a fundamental point you are missing: The Rule of Law means we embrace the Law that IS - there and then. The same is true for the Rule of Scripture . Now, the Rule of Law doesn't define what the law is, it embraces the law. The Rule of Scripture doesn't define what the Scirpture is, it embraces it. Now, again, IF you want to argue that the Book of Mormon should be regarded as a part of the biblical canon or IF you want to argue that it should be a law that you may drive as fast as you want, then that's another subject for another day and thread. The fact is: The embrace of the NT is one of the oldest, strongest and most ecumenical points of consensus in all of Christianity - and you know that. I think you also know that the Rule of Scirpture doesn't define Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law defines the law.
How do we know which books belong in the Bible? The early Church's answer was: Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture

Interesting, since NONE of the following were written by an Apostle:

Hebrews
James
Jude

And the following books never state the author, so we don't know that they were written by an Apostle:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
1 John
2 John
3 John
Revelation








If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament) of if it was written by one of the apostles or their associates (like the books of the New Testament), it belonged in the Bible. Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.
Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:



  • "Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be" <(Early Christian Doctrines,> 60).
But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book's claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible.

Reality check: We don't know why/how the canoncial "list" developed. But we DO know this: NO DENOMINATION (including the RCC) had a thing to do with it.





.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Interesting, since NONE of the following were written by an Apostle:......
........And the following books never state the author, so we don't know that they were written by an Apostle:

Reality check: We don't know why/how the canoncial "list" developed. But we DO know this: NO DENOMINATION (including the RCC) had a thing to do with it.
I once looked at this site awhile back concerning the Great Flood and it appears they also have a rather good article on the history of the Bible....:wave:

History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us
History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
The term "Solo Scriptura" was brought up on another thread in conjunction with "Sola Scriptura".
My own definition and view of "Solo" implies Scripture only and not going outside of what is Written while "Sola" means subscribing to both what has been Written and the Oral "traditions" of the ECFs and others that claim they were orally taught by the Apostles themselves.
So I would like to here from other Christians of all denominations on how they view the difference and I would like to quote a verse from Paul:

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brethren, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the other.

the fact that youre asking us (looking to an authority other than Scripture...) definitively proves that it is NOT Scriptural.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
the fact that youre asking us (looking to an authority other than Scripture...) definitively proves that it is NOT Scriptural.
Thank you for your input js :wave:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Dear LLOJ,

For me, the fact that Scripture nowhere states what should be in it speaks against being able to rely on it alone. If it cannot tell us what it should be, I'm uncertain how it, by itself, can tell us everything else.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟304,048.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
its actually symbolic of gods artist touch...the church which helped establish the scriptures is now in need of the scriptures to reestablish itself

you may call this circular but guess what? infinite is circular
God's artistic touch...I like that.
Circular but deeper with each truth brought forth.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by &Abel its actually symbolic of gods artist touch...the church which helped establish the scriptures is now in need of the scriptures to reestablish itself

you may call this circular but guess what? infinite is circular
God's artistic touch...I like that.
Circular but deeper with each truth brought forth.
:)
By golly I think $Abel might be unto something in dat thar post :idea:
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟304,048.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
:)
By golly I think $Abel might be unto something in dat thar post :idea:
umhn, traditions symbolized what scripture says. And what satisfied the minds of even a generation or two ago aren't cutting it in anymore. People are actively seeking and that means tracing the tradition to the source.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And who first took the decision to include it in the canon of scripture. If you think it was God, provide biblical proof.

peace,

Anglian

God did! He invented the canon and he said it was inspired 2 Tim 3:16-17! :preach:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Dear LLOJ,

For me, the fact that Scripture nowhere states what should be in it speaks against being able to rely on it alone. If it cannot tell us what it should be, I'm uncertain how it, by itself, can tell us everything else.

peace,

Anglian

boy you don't even beleive in the bible do you? How can you question the bible alone?? God said it I believe it that settles it! Don't need no man made tradition adding to the word of God!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.