Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Hentenza]

Where does it say in scripture that, for example, the Didache is less inspired?

Where does the didache make the claim to be inspired?

The problem about arguing that the 'canon' is now set, or in fact that Scripture alone is inspired is that the canon included, or excluded other books - the Bible today doesn't have the same books as other canons

So you doubt the councils that affirmed the canon?

 

[spiritwarrior37]

Show me where scriptures say we should only use scriptures

2Tim. 3:16-17-16All 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.
This should tell you that all you need are scriptures.
And if you want to go that route, show me where scriptures say we should use anything else.

 

[laconicstudent]

2Tim. 3:16-17-16All 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.
This should tell you that all you need are scriptures.
And if you want to go that route, show me where scriptures say we should use anything else.

Montalban asked for a verse which stated that we should use only Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn't fulfill that requirement.

 

[Montalban]

Where does the didache make the claim to be inspired?

It doesn't. Neither does the book of Jude.

So you doubt the councils that affirmed the canon?

I don't believe I said that. What I did note is that they took their time and that over-time books were added, or not.

In one 'canon' the Didache is included.

Clement of Rome's 1st Epistle was also included.

 

[Montalban]

2Tim. 3:16-17-16All 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.
This should tell you that all you need are scriptures.
And if you want to go that route, show me where scriptures say we should use anything else.

You're the third person to be making the same mistake on this thread.

The notion "All scriptures is inspired by God" does not mean "All that is inspired word of God is scripture"

So, I ask you not which verse of scripture says that scripture is inspired, but which verse of scripture says that ONLY scripture should be used?

 

[Rick Otto]

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

I get that.

The Bereans got that too, where scripture shows them using only scripture to verify the new truths the apotles were teaching.

 

[Montalban]

The example of the Bereans incident is not given as an example for us to follow. It's not stated "This is the example to follow".

It would however be natural for Jews to check their own scriptures. It would be less likely that Paul going to preach to Gentiles would be teaching them from OT scriptures because they'd have less meaning to Gentiles.

And here's another thing too. Paul was teaching a 'new gospel'. It was not found in the OT. It certainly didn't contradict the OT, but what Paul was teaching was new. Else we'd be banned from eating pork, we'd be worshiping on a Saturday, and we'd all have to be circumcised.

Furthermore in Acts 15 when we see the Apostles making a decision on what to do they listened to Paul, they listened to Peter and James ruled based on what Peter and Paul said, as well as scripture.

The incident of the Bereans is simply given that that's what they did. Others rejected the message - such as the Thessalonian Jews (initially). We're just shown these two things. Neither incident says "Do this...".

"The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280)."
WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED <I>SOLA SCRIPTURA</I> (This Rock: March 1997)

 

[addo]

I asked first. Instead of you answering you chose to ask me something else.

This reminds me of Jesus not answering a question but making a question instead, as a response to their question (their question was about His authority and He responded with another question about John's baptism). Are you mad because He follows Jesus' example?

I'm saying that I don't believe God's words are found only in the Bible

How do you which word outside the Bible is the word of God and not the word of the devil?

 

[Montalban]

This reminds me of Jesus not answering a question but making a question instead, as a response to their question (their question was about His authority and He responded with another question about John's baptism). Are you mad because He follows Jesus' example?

If you're a fan of the "Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister" series you'd note that politicians will answer the question that they'd rather like to have been asked.

It's a rule of politics that when you don't like the question you say "That's a very interesting question, but let me ask this...", and thus you dodge the issue

 

[Fireinfolding]

I get that.

The Bereans got that too, where scripture shows them using only scripture to verify the new truths the apotles were teaching.

I do get that too Rick, good you pulled that up, see? This is eactly how mens words become slippery, He has a good point if you take them to yourself you end up trying to defend the illusive, but if Gods words take preeminence over mens that better describes it because He does say turn to my reproof (which is the scriptures) and I will pour my spirit unto you and make my words known to you. So there are somethings that are within them (even mysteries) in accord with them needing Him to make them clear. This then relies on our turning at them (his reproof) and His revealing them (who giveth understanding to us).

I agree with squint on that.

 

[addo]

If you're a fan of the "Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister" series you'd note that politicians will answer the question that they'd rather like to have been asked.

It's a rule of politics that when you don't like the question you say "That's a very interesting question, but let me ask this...", and thus you dodge the issue

Like Jesus? Jesus made a fair deal: answer my question and I'll answer yours.

And you didn't respond to my question: how can you know for certain what word is the word of God outside the Bible?

 

[Hentenza]

It doesn't. Neither does the book of Jude.



I don't believe I said that. What I did note is that they took their time and that over-time books were added, or not.

In one 'canon' the Didache is included.

Clement of Rome's 1st Epistle was also included.

Most canonized books where never in doubt. The bible itself canonizes a good portion of itself (over half). For example, Peter considered Paul's writings as authoritative (13 books) and Paul considered Luke's writings the same (2 books). The gospels were never in question (4 books). Neither were most of the others. The NT books that received the most controversy were Hebrew, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. Books like the didache which were written in the 2nd century can not be scripture because they were not written by an apostle or a companion of one. The authorship of 1 Clement has been in question for centuries.

God left us the bible and guided the councils to accept what had already been accepted as canonical since the 1st century. Traditions, on the other hand, is spurious at best since it is quite subjective. No 'new" oral apostolic teaching is possible once the last apostle died because no one else can be an eyewitness of Christ which is a requirement for an apostle, therefore, all ECF writings are fallible and can not be used in matters of doctrine. Scripture, on the other hand, is the inspired and infallible word of God and is the sole authority in matters of doctrine. All else is man made.

All denominations have traditions in one form or another. There is nothing wrong with them but they are not co-authoritative with scripture and consequently, subject to scripture.

 

[andross77]

You're the third person to be making the same mistake on this thread.

The notion "All scriptures is inspired by God" does not mean "All that is inspired word of God is scripture"

So, I ask you not which verse of scripture says that scripture is inspired, but which verse of scripture says that ONLY scripture should be used?

This 2 Timothy verse does precisely that. It tells you that All Scripture is God-breathed. It never says anything else is. Therefore the Word of God should be held on a platform high above ANY OTHER piece of literature.

Sure you can read other stuff and gain wisdom from other stuff. God never told us not to do that. But if you form your fundamental world view and doctrines from literature that is NOT God-breathed, you are doing it wrong...

 

[jckstraw72]

This 2 Timothy verse does precisely that. It tells you that All Scripture is God-breathed. It never says anything else is. Therefore the Word of God should be held on a platform high above ANY OTHER piece of literature.

Sure you can read other stuff and gain wisdom from other stuff. God never told us not to do that. But if you form your fundamental world view and doctrines from literature that is NOT God-breathed, you are doing it wrong...

man is also God-breathed. perhaps then the assembly of God-breathed believers, filled with the Holy Spirit might have some authority .....

a human being can actually know God, the Scriptures help us on that path, but to know God is better than to talk about Him.

 

[Rick Otto]

The example of the Bereans incident is not given as an example for us to follow. It's not stated "This is the example to follow".

And yet as much is immediately admitted (at least) in the apostle's commending their behavior doing it. You're argument isn't against the idea, it's about the wording of it. I have no idea why.

The notion "All scriptures is inspired by God" does not mean "All that is inspired word of God is scripture"

Nor is it meant to mean that. It is meant to express the integrity of scripture as being worthy of use as a calibration tool for the subject it deals with.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Now if it said, the bereans were more wretched then the others because in their indifference (over their readiness of mind) they checked nothing out there might be built a case against maybe

 

[New_Wineskin]

2Tim. 3:16-17-16All 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.
This should tell you that all you need are scriptures.
And if you want to go that route, show me where scriptures say we should use anything else.

No mention of "should use" . No mention of "need" or "necessary" - only "profitable" . No mention of "only" .

No mention in the Scriptures of "we should use" any created thing - the Scriptures or otherwise .

Also , this passage deals only with the Law and the Prophets - those are all that they considered to be Scriptures at the time . That means , by your doctrine and use of the passage , that all doctrines must be first and foremost be supported by the Law and the Prophets .

 

[New_Wineskin]

The example of the Bereans incident is not given as an example for us to follow. It's not stated "This is the example to follow".

Exactly . It is simply mentioned by the auhor that they did that and were of noble character - just like the author mentioned that the disciples met the first day of the week - no example or rule - simply naration .

Also , the Bereans were Jews and were supposed to look things up in the Scriptures - the Law and the Prophets . So , once again , if this is to be a rule and example , those that look at that verse as such should support all doctrine first and foremost by the Law and the Prophets - that which was used by the Berean Jews . It doesn't matter how much support from the newer Scriptures a doctrine has . If this is the support for "Scriptures only" , doctrines must have support by the older writings first .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Now if it said, the bereans were more wretched then the others because in their indifference (over their readiness of mind) they checked nothing out there might be built a case against maybe

I wonder if they squabbled as much was we squabble here on GT

 

[heymikey80]

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.

Well, that's not what "sola scriptura" means historically, so ...

"sola scriptura" historically labels a view that Scripture understood through what the Spirit means is the sole infallible authority over faith and practice.

Y'got Scripture: infallible as understood by the Spirit of God; often plainly understandable; authoritative.
Y'got the Fathers: by special historical circumstance often directly knowledgeable, fallible, identifying of the church at the time.
Y'got teachers: fallible, often knowledgeable.
Y'got pastors: fallible, relational, practical.
Y'got elders: fallible, appointed as limited, delegated authorities in the church; tested to being knowledgeable, wise, careful with the teachings of the faith. Still fallible.


"Solo Scriptura" is a phrase used to identify the view that Scripture allows no other authorities, other views, counsel, or information from scholarly or knowledgeable sources, as being directly applicable to the individuals who read Scripture, the way they read it.

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura