Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Yeznik]

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

Unfortunately, the “historical” definition for Sola Scriptura given above is fallible since it was determined by “scholarly” or by “knowledgeable” sources. And since Sola Scriptura is fallible it should not be used in understanding Scripture.

 

[Montalban]

Like Jesus?

You've already tried this. I don't think he's got pretensions at being Jesus, but maybe you think so.

And you didn't respond to my question:

Sure, I'm game. You haven't answered where in scripture does scripture say it's the only source to use

But then we're playing by different rules

how can you know for certain what word is the word of God outside the Bible?

For a start I already touched upon this. There are 'words' not in the Bible that once were in it. Such as Clement of Rome's Epistle. At that time other books that are now in the Bible weren't in it. The fact that they're in or out of the Bible doesn't lessen their authenticity.

As to the 'word' outside now, for a start Jesus himself is outside the Bible. He is the Word of God. Given that you probably believe in sola scriptura then that would mean that I can only judge Jesus by the Bible, not the other way around.

Next I have the assurance of the church that compiled the Bible in the first place. The Holy Spirit was happy to work through them in the long process of compiling it.

For the opposition they may acknowledge the HS at work, but they've got to pretend it was like a temp visit. That the HS left the church some time after the events of the Bible then paid a flying visit a few centuries later - long enough to get them to put the bible together - then left again.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=New_Wineskin; 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 .

The narrated rule was that nobleness of character & readiness of mind was notable & related to, not simply proximate with, their due diligence of making sense of new truths from new 'holy men'.
The pedigree of tradition was trumped by the truth of scripture.
It goes right along with the end of the Levitical order & the begining of the priesthood of the believer.
Truth upheld in righteousness is the only legitimate source of authority.
I know,... it's more often an ideal than a reality.

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 .

That would be a misapplication of an oversimplification. You are trying to force the general principle of sola scriptura onto specific subcategories. Age chauvinism claiming primacy in authority is a moot point because the lessons of the law & the messages of the prophets synthesize in the NT. There is inter-relation & overlapping of truths, but no hierarchy there. The Bereans saw the foreshadowing & types & the prophecies fulfilled in the new information, it wasn't simply "doctrine", it was revelation.

 

[Rick Otto]

Unfortunately, the “historical” definition for Sola Scriptura given above is fallible since it was determined by “scholarly” or by “knowledgeable” sources. And since Sola Scriptura is fallible it should not be used in understanding Scripture.

Then scripture can't be used to understand scripture.

 

[Montalban]

Scripture doesn't define itself.

Nor does it authorise itself

 

[shinbits]

Scripture doesn't define itself.

Nor does it authorise itself

By that logic, ANYTHING can be Scripture.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Something other the Holy Spirits words will define the Holy Spirits words?

 

[Dorothea]

Eh, might as well throw this excerpt from monk Anthony's book out here once again. Just to add something to the thread.

The Bible a "Personal Matter"

Protestantism's Sola Scriptura insists that the interpretation of the Bible is a personal matter. This is a position that not only demands departure from what has been universally and consistently believed by Christianity since the time of Christ but which also directly contradicts the Bible itself: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).

The "dogma" of Scripture alone was a product of the Protestant Reformation's opposition to abuses committed by the Western Church at Rome under Pope Leo X in the early sixteenth century. Because the criticisms lodged by Martin Luther failed to result in corrective action, Protestant Reformers had no choice but to turn from organized religion and the Church's authority. This was a course that severed any and all reliance on apostolic teaching, the Church, and the Church Fathers.

There was another alternative to the split with Rome. Protestant Reformers could have returned to the church that had been established by the Lord Jesus Christ in the first century. Unfortunately, that avenue was not pursued and without any connection to the historical New Testament Church Protestantism was left at sea in an every-man-for-himself dilemma.

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth (Jn. 14:26 & Jn 16:13), is the dwelling place of God in Spirit (Eph. 2:22), and is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). As such the Church serves as the keeper and protector of apostolic teaching (which, in part, involves written Scripture). This, to turn from the Church must also result in departing from what the Body of Christ has always believed, a replacing of that corporate belief with personal opinion. And in turn this undermines the authority of the bible because if one doesn't trust the tradition that produced it, one can hardly trust the Bible.

The collection of the books of the New Testament scriptures into a book was the church's and the Church Fathers' fourth-century response to rising false teachings that claimed apostolic authority.

One of the many insurmountable problems within Protestantism involves the quandary resulting from the claim that the Holy Spirit provides each believer with an accurate interpretation of Scripture (the foundation of Sola Scriptura). Yet there are countless contradictory understandings of the same verses. For instance think of the controversy over infant baptism, over the various views of creation and evolution, or how to interpret biblical teachings on the so-called End Times.

The Bible says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8), so for there to be even two valid interpretations of Scripture is impossible.

Another strange consequence of Sola Scriptura is the disregard of some Bible passages in favor of others. This is particularly alarming because the precept of Sola Scriptura includes the contention that Scripture is the binding, sole authority yet there exists many departures from clear biblical verses. Take by way of example:

* Protestant denominations generally do not accept that our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon His disciples the power to forgive sins. The Savior said: "If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (Jn. 20:23). And Christ Jesus also stated that "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16:19; see also Mt. 18:18_.

*Most of Protestantism insists that the Eucharistic bread and wine are not the actually Body and Blood of Christ, finding them instead to be a symbolic remembrance of all Jesus Christ had accomplished on the cross. But in the bible we see that the Lord says, "This is My body...this is My blood" (Mt. 26;26, 28). Christ Jesus also instructs that: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life...for My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed: (Jn. 6:53-55).

***from the book West of Jesus

 

[laconicstudent]

Something other the Holy Spirits words will define the Holy Spirits words?

Do you not see the circular-logic fail in there?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Do you not see the circular-logic fail in there?

Thats why I posted it.

It says the Holy Spirit teaches by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, it says turn ye at my reproof (Which the scriptures are for) and I will pour out my spirit unto you and make my words known unto you.

I (personally) am only interested in His words.

 

[martymonster]

Thats why I posted it.

It says the Holy Spirit teaches by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, it says turn ye at my reproof (Which the scriptures are for) and I will pour out my spirit unto you and make my words known unto you.

I (personally) am only interested in His words.

Comparing spiritual with spiritual?

Whats that?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Comparing spiritual with spiritual?

Whats that?

His words are spirit

1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 

[laconicstudent]

Thats why I posted it.

It says the Holy Spirit teaches by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, it says turn ye at my reproof (Which the scriptures are for) and I will pour out my spirit unto you and make my words known unto you.

I (personally) am only interested in His words.

Yes, now tell us how you determine what constitutes "His words".

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yes, now tell us how you determine what constitutes "His words".

The scriptures, you dont consider the scriptures His words?

 

[laconicstudent]

The scriptures, you dont consider the scriptures His words?

Yes, what constitutes Scripture? The Gospel of Barnabas? The Gospel of Judas? Apocryphon of James?



con·sti·tute

   /ˈkɒn

stɪˌtut, -ˌtyut/ Show Spelled[kon-sti-toot, -tyoot] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -tut·ed, -tut·ing. 1. to compose; form: mortar constituted of lime and sand.

2. to appoint to an office or function; make or create: He was constituted treasurer.

3. to establish (laws, an institution, etc.).

4. to give legal form to (an assembly, court, etc.).

5. to create or be tantamount to: Imports constitute a challenge to local goods.

6. Archaic . to set or place.

 

[martymonster]

I would tend to think that an all powerfull God who has complete sovereignty is more than capable of preserving the Bible exactly as He see's fit to.

If you can't trust what We have been given as being enough then I don't know what you would have to cling to!

 

[laconicstudent]

I would tend to think that an all powerfull God who has complete sovereignty is more than capable of preserving the Bible exactly as He see's fit to.

Um, yeah, no one ever disputed that....

If you can't trust what We have been given as being enough then I don't know what you would have to cling to!

My point is that some people appear to have a difficult time saying exactly who it was who "gave" us the Scripture, and by what means.


Saying, "The Bible is the Bible because the Bible says so" is abysmal logic.

 

[martymonster]

Um, yeah, no one ever disputed that....




My point is that some people appear to have a difficult time saying exactly who it was who "gave" us the Scripture, and by what means.


Saying, "The Bible is the Bible because the Bible says so" is abysmal logic.

No, that faith and it's a gift!

 

[laconicstudent]

No, that faith and it's a gift!

No, its ignorance, and the lazy assumption that Christianity exists in a vacuum. It is the sort of logic a 5-year old would use. God gave us brains for a reason

 

[martymonster]

No, its ignorance, and the lazy assumption that Christianity exists in a vacuum. It is the sort of logic a 5-year old would use. God gave us brains for a reason

I see, so we don't need faith which is a gift from God, We just our own carnal reasonings?
Reasonings come from the heart and what does God say about the heart?

The heart of man above all else is desperately wicked and who can know it?

Yes and before you jump to the verse that says come let us reason together, We are to reason together with God.