Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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.

Let me start...

How do we know what books to use as scripture?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Let me start...

How do we know what books to use as scripture?

Well we do know the book of Isaiah belongs in it as JESUS quoted from it.

Y@sha`yah 61:1 "A spirit of my-Lord YHWH upon me, because YHWH anoints me to bear-tidings of humble-ones, he sends me to bind up of to ones being broken of heart, to call of to ones being taken captive, liberty, and to ones being bound freedom
2 To call of Year of acceptance/07522 ratsown for YHWH, and a Day of Vengeance for our Elohiym to comfort all of mourning ones.

Luke 4:18 A spirit of LORD upon Me which, on account of, He anoints Me to well-messagize to poor-ones,
19 To proclaim Year of Lord acceptable.
21 He begins to say yet toward them "that today has been ful-filled the Writing, this, in the ears of ye".

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well we do know the book of Isaiah belongs in it as JESUS quoted from it.

Y@sha`yah 61:1 "A spirit of my-Lord YHWH upon me, because YHWH anoints me to bear-tidings of humble-ones, he sends me to bind up of to ones being broken of heart, to call of to ones being taken captive, liberty, and to ones being bound freedom
2 To call of Year of acceptance/07522 ratsown for YHWH, and a Day of Vengeance for our Elohiym to comfort all of mourning ones.

Luke 4:18 A spirit of LORD upon Me which, on account of, He anoints Me to well-messagize to poor-ones,
19 To proclaim Year of Lord acceptable.
21 He begins to say yet toward them "that today has been ful-filled the Writing, this, in the ears of ye".

Did Jesus quote from Revelation?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Did Jesus quote from Revelation?

He and practically all the Apostles did as Revelation is a Revealing of what was hidden in the Old and is more for the Jews than for us so I read it in a "Jewish" light so to speak.
Note the Song of Moses in Reve 15 which coincidentally is the same Chapt # shown in Exodus

Reve 19:20 and the Wild-Beast was taken and with him the False-Prophet ............living they were Cast--the two--to the Lake of the fire that is burning with brimstone

Reve 15:3 And they are singing the Song of Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the Song of the Lamb-kin saying: "Great and marvelous the Works of Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty. Just and true the ways of Thee, the King of the saints" [*ages/*nations]. [Exodus 15]

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Mosheh and the sons of Yisra'el this song unto YHWH, and they spake saying,--"I will sing to YHWH for He is exalted exalted,--The horse and his rider hath He cast into the Sea. [Reve 15:3]

 

[squint]

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.

Nice distinction and great quote support there lambo!

People often mistake 'sola' Word/scripture as ALL the scriptures. It is a FACT that Gods Words are PRE-EMMINENT above everyone else's is it not?

That would be THE LAW and THE PROPHETS where those same spoke AS GOD...through those men, and no, we did NOT need the RCC to round up the Old Testament. The Words of Jesus BROUGHT Grace and Truth to THOSE WORDS of God...and the events themselves as well.

All the 'other words' though 'inspired' are NOT direct Words of God. The Law, the Prophets, the Words of Jesus...these are the scriptures in their 'truest' sense. Everyone else's words take A BACK SEAT to the PRIMARY just as Paul notes in your citing.

We see what happened when groups of MEN started relying on their own words don't we? The power of God comes upon them to SEPARATE them because of their CONFUSIONS that they carry within and this TOO is a working of SOLO SCRIPTURA.

enjoy!

squint

 

[JacktheCatholic]

He and practically all the Apostles did as Revelation is a Revealing of what was hidden in the Old and is more for the Jews than for us so I read it in a "Jewish" light so to speak.
Note the Song of Moses in Reve 15 which coincidentally is the same Chapt # shown in Exodus

Reve 19:20 and the Wild-Beast was taken and with him the False-Prophet ............living they were Cast--the two--to the Lake of the fire that is burning with brimstone

Reve 15:3 And they are singing the Song of Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the Song of the Lamb-kin saying: "Great and marvelous the Works of Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty. Just and true the ways of Thee, the King of the saints" [*ages/*nations]. [Exodus 15]

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Mosheh and the sons of Yisra'el this song unto YHWH, and they spake saying,--"I will sing to YHWH for He is exalted exalted,--The horse and his rider hath He cast into the Sea. [Reve 15:3]

I was reading some scientific facts and it is agreed that Revelation was written close to 100 AD. This would have been right before John died and all the other Apostles had gone on to Heaven. Some even argue that it was not written by an Apostle at all. So why is that you say the Apostles quoted it?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was reading some scientific facts and it is agreed that Revelation was written close to 100 AD. This would have been right before John died and all the other Apostles had gone on to Heaven. Some even argue that it was not written by an Apostle at all. So why is that you say the Apostles quoted it?

Ok, we can say Revelation quoted them

Luke 2:32 A Light into a from-covering/apo-kaluyin <602> of Nations and glory of people of Thee Israel

Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV <602> Jesus Christ which gives to him, the God, to show to His bond-servants which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness. And He signifies commissioning thru the messenger of Him, to the bondservants of Him, John.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

2 Thess 2:15

How does Solo Scriptura answer the question about oral?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Ok, we can say Revelation quoted them

Luke 2:32 A Light into a from-covering/apo-kaluyin <602> of Nations and glory of people of Thee Israel

Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV <602> Jesus Christ, which gives to him, the God, to show to His bond-servants, which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness. And He signifies commissioning thru the messenger of Him, to the bondservants of Him, John.

The book quoted them...

Who wrote Revelation? John?

If so, then we could say John quoted them. And then I would ask how do you know John wrote it?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The book quoted them...

Who wrote Revelation? John?

If so, then we could say John quoted them. And then I would ask how do you know John wrote it?

This isn't about just Revelation but all the way back to Genesis. I would like others to respond if that is ok.......

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This isn't about just Revelation but all the way back to Genesis. I would like others to respond if that is ok.......

LOL

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Anymore views on this? I don't get paid by the hour creating these threads

 

[tadoflamb]

I thought the term Solo Scriptura was coined by Sola Scripturists to describe "me and my bible" types.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

I disagree...

"Sola Scriptura" is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of positions.

"SOLO Scriptura" is a term used nowhere and is unknown in Protestantism or Christianity. I've never heard of it except in some websites. As far as I can tell, it refers to the rejection of Tradition as a tool in hermeneutics. As such, I find it unwise - but in any case, it applies to hermeneutics whereas Sola Scriptura applies to norming.




.

 

[Trento]

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.

n/c

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let me start...

How do we know what books to use as scripture?

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.





.

 

[Trento]

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 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

 

[Kristos]

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.

Of course it is. I do it all the time, but rarely succeed in getting my point across. Explanation always seems necessary.

 

[Trento]

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. 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.