Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

Status
Not open for further replies.

&Abel

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2008
7,291
416
42
✟12,921.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Let me start...

How do we know what books to use as scripture?

from the work of the church(including protestant)

why we know is irrelevant

we KNOW and so now we make use of it...actually the church is an integral part in how we know its the truth...the bible predicts its own popularity...so if the church didn't exist logic suggests the books would have fallen out of popular use

that said the main purpose of prophecy as stated in scripture is to edify the church...if the church doesn't even follow the books it was given as to how it should function and through man made doctrines pervert the meaning of that scripture then while it played its essential role and is essential is still in need of edifying
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

Going back to the first council in Jerusalem, we find what they did in order to solve a dispute (two contrary teachings).

1) They debated the dispute.

2) They used tradition in a positive (must do it-follow law of Moses) and negative way (can't do it).

3) They solo scripture, in effect rejecting tradition.

4) But, because of brotherly love, they make a nod to Moses.

5) Then they agree.

6) In their letter, they again say it seemed "good to us" and to the Holy Spirit.

So, they understood tradition, had brotherly love, but solo scripture. Without solo scripture, they would have mixed the old and new or the body would be divided within their lifetimes.

Sleep on it, does X still seem good to you and the Holy Spirit?

To take an example today of, say, baptism, full or partial immersion, adult or baby. We'd discuss it. Search scripture. Consider fruit. Consider tradition. If we left it there, we'd end up with contradiction. Instead, we would eventually have to and be forced to solo scripture. Then, make a nod to tradition, try to stay in fellowship, sleep on it. If it is good to us and the Holy Spirit, then we would issue a letter.
 
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
The problem with Solo scriptura bottom line is that it places scripture above the Jesus body the church and we as individual members of it, with Jesus as the head, subservient to the presence of Christ in the body.

In other words God, Jesus Christ is lower than scripture. Where as catholics say Christ in his presence in the body and his living words in sacred scripture are equal. Tradition emanates from the Holy Spirit indwelling within us, but in the solo scriptura scheme, He is also lower and not equal to scripture.


Scripture greater than God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the indwelling of His body? Not hardly.

Equal to because they are the living words of God? You bet.

Solo scriptura at it's core really doesn't recognize God


I agree.

Sola Scriptura makes all subject to God and His Scriptures.
The RCC and LDS reject that, arguing that all are subject to itself, including itself.

The RCC and LDS use the norma normans of "The Three-Legged-Stool" as the Mormons call it. The RCC defines those 3 as:

1) Tradition as the RCC itself defines, chooses and interprets so as to agree with the RCC. While technically EQUAL to the other two "legs" it is always listed first and given priority whenever the RCC norma normans is mentioned and discussed.

2) The Scriptures - not on any page or in any tome but "in the heart of the RCC" as the RCC exclusively understands and interprets.

3) The Magisterium of the RCC alone as define and chosen by the RCC alone - it's own rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations declared by the self same to be infallible.

THESE 3 THINGS TOGETHER - EQUALLY, INSEPARABLY, SUPPLIMENTALLY - form the norma normans for the RCC , the Rule or Canon or Plumbline it alone insists MUST be used in order to determine if the teachings and tradition of the RCC are correct or not.

When the RCC does this, the LDS claims it's just one perfect circle of of self-authentication with no other possiblity but to show that self is correct. When the LDS does this, the RCC claims that it's just one perfect circle of self-authentication with no other function than to show that self is correct. I think both are correct.






.
 
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 RCC and LDS use the norma normans of "The Three-Legged-Stool" as the Mormons call it. The RCC defines those 3 as:
:D
Every time you bring up the 3 legged stool I have to chuckle....
 
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
I agree.

Sola Scriptura makes all subject to God and His Scriptures.
The RCC and LDS reject that, arguing that all are subject to itself, including itself.
I was on forums where Roman Catholicism was compared to Mormonism and anyone that has debated the Mormons will know how "steadfast" they are in their views and beliefs. I stopped debating them awhile back.
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟22,534.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I agree.

Sola Scriptura makes all subject to God and His Scriptures.
The RCC and LDS reject that, arguing that all are subject to itself, including itself.

The RCC and LDS use the norma normans of "The Three-Legged-Stool" as the Mormons call it. The RCC defines those 3 as:

1) Tradition as the RCC itself defines, chooses and interprets so as to agree with the RCC. While technically EQUAL to the other two "legs" it is always listed first and given priority whenever the RCC norma normans is mentioned and discussed.

2) The Scriptures - not on any page or in any tome but "in the heart of the RCC" as the RCC exclusively understands and interprets.

3) The Magisterium of the RCC alone as define and chosen by the RCC alone - it's own rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations declared by the self same to be infallible.

THESE 3 THINGS TOGETHER - EQUALLY, INSEPARABLY, SUPPLIMENTALLY - form the norma normans for the RCC , the Rule or Canon or Plumbline it alone insists MUST be used in order to determine if the teachings and tradition of the RCC are correct or not.

When the RCC does this, the LDS claims it's just one perfect circle of of self-authentication with no other possiblity but to show that self is correct. When the LDS does this, the RCC claims that it's just one perfect circle of self-authentication with no other function than to show that self is correct. I think both are correct.





.


You don't make sense.:doh:

I believe in the Trinity of God. But not on the basis of a word-for-word interpretation of the Bible, because the words "God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are Three Persons in One" were never written there. This is interpretation -- interpretation made in terms of traditional, philosophical, theological belief.
"The Word" (Logos) is Christ. But I suspect that our Mormon friends do not agree. Why not? Because the concept of logos is also a product of ancient Greek philosophy, pre-dating the birth of Christ by several centuries. So I suspect that our LDS friends would argue that these words at the beginning of St. John's Gospel reflect his apparent exposure to Greco-Roman philosophy as much as they do an understanding of Christ's relationship to God.
The bottom line is that Scripture doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor can it be interpreted that way. It was written at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through men who expressed themselves in the language of their times. Much of the language of St. John is philosophical -- not necessarily because he was a student of philosophy -- but because Christ is Truth, and the goal of philosophy is, ultimately, to get at Truth.
 
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
The bottom line is that Scripture doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor can it be interpreted that way.

And if this thread were about hermeneutics, we could have a wonderful conversation about that...





.
 
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
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

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
Going back to the first council in Jerusalem, we find what they did in order to solve a dispute (two contrary teachings).

1) They debated the dispute.

2) They used tradition in a positive (must do it-follow law of Moses) and negative way (can't do it).

3) They solo scripture, in effect rejecting tradition.

4) But, because of brotherly love, they make a nod to Moses.

5) Then they agree.

6) In their letter, they again say it seemed "good to us" and to the Holy Spirit.

So, they understood tradition, had brotherly love, but solo scripture. Without solo scripture, they would have mixed the old and new or the body would be divided within their lifetimes.

Sleep on it, does X still seem good to you and the Holy Spirit?

To take an example today of, say, baptism, full or partial immersion, adult or baby. We'd discuss it. Search scripture. Consider fruit. Consider tradition. If we left it there, we'd end up with contradiction. Instead, we would eventually have to and be forced to solo scripture. Then, make a nod to tradition, try to stay in fellowship, sleep on it. If it is good to us and the Holy Spirit, then we would issue a letter.

So basically it was the leaders that decided. Of course it is...
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So basically it was the leaders that decided. Of course it is...

Yes and they used scripture. They didn't use tradition and they didn't use experience and they didn't claim a higher authority and they didn't claim one person above another.

They used SCRIPTURE to explain. They said it seemed good to US and SPIRIT.

The deal that some might miss here is Paul's later admonition not to lay hands too hastily. IOW, yes there are leaders and yet their "followers" are praised to inspect scripture and challenge them and yes the wheat and tares grow together.
 
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
Yes and they used scripture. They didn't use tradition and they didn't use experience and they didn't claim a higher authority and they didn't claim one person above another.

They used SCRIPTURE to explain. They said it seemed good to US and SPIRIT.

The deal that some might miss here is Paul's later admonition not to lay hands too hastily. IOW, yes there are leaders and yet their "followers" are praised to inspect scripture and challenge them and yes the wheat and tares grow together.
According to the first pope Peter, we will be "inspected" on the final day.
Interesting word #1984

Luke 19:44 And shall be leveling thee and thy offspring in thee, and not shall be leaving stone upon stone in thee, instead which not thou knew the time of thy visitation/inspection/episkophV <1984>".

1 Peter 2:12 The behaviour of ye in the nations having ideal, that in which they are according speaking of ye as evildoers out of the ideal works of being spectators, they should be glorifying the God in day of visitation/inspection/episkophV <1984>.

1984. episkope ep-is-kop-ay' from 1980; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian "episcopate":--the office of a "bishop", bishoprick, visitation.
4648. skopeo skop-eh'-o from 4649; to take aim at (spy), i.e. (figuratively) regard:--consider, take heed, look at (on), mark. Compare 3700.
 
Upvote 0

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
Yes and they used scripture. They didn't use tradition and they didn't use experience and they didn't claim a higher authority and they didn't claim one person above another.

They used SCRIPTURE to explain. They said it seemed good to US and SPIRIT.

The deal that some might miss here is Paul's later admonition not to lay hands too hastily. IOW, yes there are leaders and yet their "followers" are praised to inspect scripture and challenge them and yes the wheat and tares grow together.

But the leaders were the authority.
 
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

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
But the leaders were the authority.
Don't priests, ministers and bishops have authority today in the Christian Church?

Romans 15:3 "For even the Christ not to Himself pleases but according as it has been written: 'The reproaches of those reproaching thee fall upon Me'": [Psalm 69:9]
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But the leaders were the authority.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TraderJack
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
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.
:thumbsup:
 
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

TraderJack

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2007
4,093
259
✟5,455.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
2 Thess 2:15

How does Solo Scriptura answer the question about oral?

Tell us what exactly are the "oral traditions" and tell us where these "oral traditions" are, then tell us how you know positively, infallibly that they are Apostolic in origin.

In other words:

WHERE'S THE BEEF?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.