Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Ortho_Cat]

Here's a key point which I'm not sure anyone has pointed out yet, or at least in this manner.

Let's take a scenario. Let's say that there was a hypothetical book that was included in the new testament; lets call it the book of canon. This book was written shortly after Revelation, and contains in it a list of all the books included in the NT canon which we are familiar with, and deems that they are all inspired by God.

Unfortunately, this only moves the search for authority one step backwards, from the rest of NT scripture to this book called canon. Now we must search for the reason why this so-called book is authoritative, and somehow be able to show how and why it was inspired by God himself. Ultimately, our search comes up empty, and we end up relying on the word of the book of canon itself because 'it says so'. We know from the NT that Christ didn't write this book, nor did he explicity command anyone to write such a book, so the historical connection is lost along with the book's authority, and so falls the rest of them.

This is the never-ending, perpetuating search for authority that the SS'ian find himself on. Even if he can come up with a list of NT scripture from scripture itself, he has no solid reason to believe that list is authoritative. Unfortunately, Christ himself never authorized a canon of sacred writings outside of the OT. He never delegated any authority to anyone except to the apostles which were to continue His Church. This is where the ultimate authority has been placed, in the Church he founded, guided by the apostles and their successors, with Christ as the head.

Either the SS'ian recognizes the authority of the church, which ultimately provided scripture with it's canonical status and legitimacy, or it continues on its never-ending search for a phantom authority to justify scripture which simply doesn't exist.

 

[ARBITER01]

Again, please don't limit Truth to the written word.

No, let me fix this for you,..

"Again, please don't stop me from adding to the written word with things my church says."

That's what you really are attempting to foster when you say such things to us, and we are not naive, friend.

 

[Montalban]

No, let me fix this for you,..

"Again, please don't stop me from adding to the written word with things my church says."

That's what you really are attempting to foster when you say such things to us, and we are not naive, friend.

If you can point out in your self-authorising Bible where it says that it and only it are to be relied upon that would be excellent.

 

[Goodbook]

And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:3-4).

 

[Montalban]

And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:3-4).

So many times I find people confused between two similar but distinct concepts.

One is

a) "The Bible is the Word of God"

and

b) "God's Word is solely to be found in the Bible"


So many people quote verses supporting a) to prove b). And they're not the same thing.

Showing scriptures saying that the Word of God is in Scriptures is not the same as saying ONLY scripture contains the Word of God

Oddly enough this is evidenced IN the Bible

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Thus the "Word" that they kept, was both written and spoken.

 

[Anoetos]

If the Bible is the very Word of God, then all discussion about what we revere and how we revere it falls away. It has authority over the church, it is our rule and guide.

The reason it alone is our rule and guide is because all other rules and guides (popes, councils, church fathers, etc.) can and have erred. They are fine and are to be accepted when they do not deviate from the rule, but that they can and have done so means that, at peril to our souls we must never invest them with authority in the church equal to that of Scripture, which, being the very Word of God, cannot and has not erred.

 

[StThomasMore]

The key powers of binding & loosing in Matt 18 seem to have more to do with social conflicts rather than doctrinal authority.

where does it say that in the bible?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

No, let me fix this for you,..

"Again, please don't stop me from adding to the written word with things my church says."

That's what you really are attempting to foster when you say such things to us, and we are not naive, friend.

Rather, I am trying to help you see the proper context for scripture.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If the Bible is the very Word of God, then all discussion about what we revere and how we revere it falls away. It has authority over the church, it is our rule and guide.

Agreed. How do you determine what is the word of God (and what isn't) without relying on the authority of the church to tell you that it is?

The reason it alone is our rule and guide is because all other rules and guides (popes, councils, church fathers, etc.) can and have erred. They are fine and are to be accepted when they do not deviate from the rule, but that they can and have done so means that, at peril to our souls we must never invest them with authority in the church equal to that of Scripture, which, being the very Word of God, cannot and has not erred.

I see. So when a positive claim for the bible as sole authority cannot be made, then it win's by default? Care to tell me how the testament of the church fathers as a whole has failed us and how the ecumenical councils have failed us? You realize that I can make the same case that the councils are inspired by God as well, and cannot fail us?

No, perhaps not, but man's interpretation of it can, and does err, which is why we need to place it in proper context. And by the way, with regard to the NT, who told you it was the "word of God"?

 

[Standing Up]

Agreed. How do you determine what is the word of God (and what isn't) without relying on the authority of the church to tell you that it is?



I see. So when a positive claim for the bible as sole authority cannot be made, then it win's by default? Care to tell me how the testament of the church fathers as a whole has failed us and how the ecumenical councils have failed us? You realize that I can make the same case that the councils are inspired by God as well, and cannot fail us?

No, perhaps not, but man's interpretation of it can, and does err, which is why we need to place it in proper context. And by the way, with regard to the NT, who told you it was the "word of God"?

Which group gets together and reads the canons of Constantinople or Nicea or Trent? None. Which group gets together and reads Irenaeus, Polycarp, or Clement of Alexandria? None. Which group gets together and reads scripture? We all do.

The deal is there are things in the church that arose out from some source apart from scripture. Scripture is the plumb line; we compare a teaching with it. All of us, even the ones who want to use a 3-legged truth stool, though they probably wish they didn't have to, use scripture. It's always the starting point and then they drift away from it, trying to prove the papacy or assumption of Mary or whathaveyou; those things that developed detract.

We are simply saying, do that. Take a practice and see whether it's apostolic. Is it in scripture? I'd even grant is it found in the first 100 years or so? If not, then toss it as causing schism.

 

[sunlover1]

Here's a key point which I'm not sure anyone has pointed out yet, or at least in this manner.

Let's take a scenario. Let's say that there was a hypothetical book that was included in the new testament; lets call it the book of canon. This book was written shortly after Revelation, and contains in it a list of all the books included in the NT canon which we are familiar with, and deems that they are all inspired by God.

Unfortunately, this only moves the search for authority one step backwards, from the rest of NT scripture to this book called canon. Now we must search for the reason why this so-called book is authoritative, and somehow be able to show how and why it was inspired by God himself. Ultimately, our search comes up empty, and we end up relying on the word of the book of canon itself because 'it says so'. We know from the NT that Christ didn't write this book, nor did he explicity command anyone to write such a book, so the historical connection is lost along with the book's authority, and so falls the rest of them.

This is the never-ending, perpetuating search for authority that the SS'ian find himself on. Even if he can come up with a list of NT scripture from scripture itself, he has no solid reason to believe that list is authoritative. Unfortunately, Christ himself never authorized a canon of sacred writings outside of the OT. He never delegated any authority to anyone except to the apostles which were to continue His Church. This is where the ultimate authority has been placed, in the Church he founded, guided by the apostles and their successors, with Christ as the head.

Either the SS'ian recognizes the authority of the church, which ultimately provided scripture with it's canonical status and legitimacy, or it continues on its never-ending search for a phantom authority to justify scripture which simply doesn't exist.

Just curious, what do you use to fight with if you don't understand the
authority of the word?
How do you fight the enemy when he comes... if not with "it is written"?

 

[sunlover1]

So many times I find people confused between two similar but distinct concepts.

One is

a) "The Bible is the Word of God"

and

b) "God's Word is solely to be found in the Bible"


So many people quote verses supporting a) to prove b). And they're not the same thing.

Showing scriptures saying that the Word of God is in Scriptures is not the same as saying ONLY scripture contains the Word of God

Oddly enough this is evidenced IN the Bible

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Thus the "Word" that they kept, was both written and spoken.

What "OTHER" words of God can you enlighten us with?
We need to live by EVERY word.

 

[Hentenza]

Where's it say it's the sole authority?

God does. Peter teaches that the bible writers were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21) and Paul teaches that their writings were breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16). Peter claims that Paul's writings were scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul cites the gospel of Matthew as scripture along with Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Tim. 5:18. Paul declares in 1 Cor. 2:13 that "His words" are "taught by the Spirit" for "God has revealed it to us by His Spirit". Paul continues in 1 Cor. 14:37 "If anyone thinks Himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of God."

What the scriptures say, God says. What God says in Gen, 12:3, the bible says in Gal. 3:8. What God says in Exodus 9:16, the bible says in Romans 9:17. What God says in Genesis 2:24, the bible says in Matthew 19:4-5. What God says in Psalm 2:1, the bible says in Acts 4:24-25. What God says in Isaiah 55:3, the bible says in Acts 13:34. What God says in Psalm 16:10, the bible says in Acts 13:35. What God says in Psalm 2:7, the bible says in Hebrews 1:5. Etc. etc. etc. You get the point.

The OT writers used the phrase (or similar) "thus says the Lord", or "God said", well over 400 times. Many times the bible claims to be the 'word of God". Jesus told the Jews in Matt. 15:6 'You nullify the word of God for the sake of your traditions". Paul speaks of scripture as the "oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2). Peter declares that "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God"(1 Peter 1:23). The writer of Hebrews affirms 'For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edge sword"(Heb. 4:12).

Traditions are highly corruptible Montalban which is why no two "T"radition churches agree on what constitutes "T"radition. Jesus despised the unbiblical traditions of the Pharisees and Scribes. These traditions developed progressively just as some newer "T"raditions have developed progressively. I submit to you that without the scriptures you would not know the revealed God but only what people progressively developed through the centuries. We see examples of this in every church that holds co-authority of both scripture and "T"radition. "T"raditions that are not quite in scripture but developed based on their own understanding. The issue is really not the authority of scripture but the errancy of man (including those in your church and mine) that depart from the revealed scripture for the sake of their 'T"raditions.

God is perfectly capable of revealing His word and maintaining His word.

 

[Hentenza]

Here's a key point which I'm not sure anyone has pointed out yet, or at least in this manner.

Let's take a scenario. Let's say that there was a hypothetical book that was included in the new testament; lets call it the book of canon. This book was written shortly after Revelation, and contains in it a list of all the books included in the NT canon which we are familiar with, and deems that they are all inspired by God.

Unfortunately, this only moves the search for authority one step backwards, from the rest of NT scripture to this book called canon. Now we must search for the reason why this so-called book is authoritative, and somehow be able to show how and why it was inspired by God himself. Ultimately, our search comes up empty, and we end up relying on the word of the book of canon itself because 'it says so'. We know from the NT that Christ didn't write this book, nor did he explicity command anyone to write such a book, so the historical connection is lost along with the book's authority, and so falls the rest of them.

This is the never-ending, perpetuating search for authority that the SS'ian find himself on. Even if he can come up with a list of NT scripture from scripture itself, he has no solid reason to believe that list is authoritative. Unfortunately, Christ himself never authorized a canon of sacred writings outside of the OT. He never delegated any authority to anyone except to the apostles which were to continue His Church. This is where the ultimate authority has been placed, in the Church he founded, guided by the apostles and their successors, with Christ as the head.

Either the SS'ian recognizes the authority of the church, which ultimately provided scripture with it's canonical status and legitimacy, or it continues on its never-ending search for a phantom authority to justify scripture which simply doesn't exist.

Which church is that? Yours? The RC? Anglican? Baptist? Methodist? Presbyterian?

 

[Hentenza]

Agreed. How do you determine what is the word of God (and what isn't) without relying on the authority of the church to tell you that it is?

Scriptures are the revealed word of God so why not God? Do you not think that God has enough power or omniscience to give us His revelation?

 

[Dorothea]

Just curious, what do you use to fight with if you don't understand the
authority of the word?
How do you fight the enemy when he comes... if not with "it is written"?

It's not an either or. We use the Scriptures in the context in which they were given to the Church, along with the oral teachings and traditions passed on to it by Christ and His Apostles. It's not one or the other, but all - whole.

 

[Hentenza]

It's not an either or. We use the Scriptures in the context in which they were given to the Church, along with the oral teachings and traditions passed on to it by Christ and His Apostles. It's not one or the other, but all - whole.

Says who? Why is your interpretation of scripture different than, for example, the RCs interpretation?

 

[Hentenza]

"T"raditions by definition are mainly oral. So has anyone been part of the old classroom experiment where a statement is told to the first student and repeated student to student until it reaches the other side of the classroom? The outcome typically is a statement that differs from the original one. It is the same with oral "T"radition. God gave us the written word so that we had the original statement not the one progressively fabricated. The authority rests with the original.

 

[Dorothea]

Says who? Why is your interpretation of scripture different than, for example, the RCs interpretation?

Because we have kept the truth from the beginning and have not added to it as the RCC has or subtracted to it as the Protestants have done. I would think we should be thankful to the Orthodox Church for preserving His teachings entrusted to us by Him from then and until His Second Coming.

The Church is not a human institution. If it were, it would've fallen apart ages ago. The Church was brought together by God and is led by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ Himself. So, even if there are humans doing wrong in the Church, falling away, heretics, etc., the Church still prevails as Christ said it would. The Church is a true and concrete and organic thing.

 

[Hentenza]

Because we have kept the truth from the beginning and have not added to it as the RCC has or subtracted to it as the Protestants have done. I would think we should be thankful to the Orthodox Church for preserving His teachings entrusted to us by Him from then and until His Second Coming.

Many disagree with this including me.

The Church is not a human institution. If it were, it would've fallen apart ages ago. The Church was brought together by God and is led by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ Himself. So, even if there are humans doing wrong in the Church, falling away, heretics, etc., the Church still prevails as Christ said it would. The Church is a true and concrete and organic thing.

The church is not an earthly institution which is the ONLY reason why it has not fallen apart. We can get into the historical "falling apart" of your church and others if you wish but that would only cause discord. Jesus is the head of the church. He is the head of my church. Surely you are not suggesting that Jesus is the head of ONLY your church.