Defining sola scriptura.

[Albion]

Name some names; who said that?

I was thinking of the many posters over the years--and some people I know "in real life" -- who have made that their argument. Do you consider it inherently contradictory, as I do?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was thinking of the many posters over the years--and some people I know "in real life" ...

Anonymous "many posters"; that's about what was expected.

 

[Albion]

Anonymous "many posters"; that's about what was expected.

...as if you haven't heard and read the same things as all the rest of us have. Embarrassing, huh?

 

[MoreCoffee]

...as if you haven't heard and read the same things ...

Can't say I have. Got a link to a post in CF?

 

[tadoflamb]

Your failure to find what you consider an official source bursted my bubble of thinking you were capable of understanding a definition when found.

But it is nice to know you are comfortable with your private decision on whom to trust in these matters, even if you are deeply confused about who that really is.

I know I'll be able to understand when I find it because it will say in bold, underlined or otherwise highlighted words, THIS IS THE OFFICIAL, FORMAL, HISTORICAL, CONFESSIONAL, VERBATIM DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT/PRINCIPLE/PRAXIS/RULE/TEACHING/DOCTRINE of SOLA SCRIPTURA, complete with the scriptural reference which is also in bold, underlined or otherwise highlighted (including book, chapter and verse)...THE SCRIPTURES ARE AND SHOULD REMAIN THE SOLE RULE IN THE NORMING OF DOCTRINE AMONG US....

I know this, because this is the standard that the sola scripturists have laid out for every one else.

So, here it is again, all seventeen words of the official, formal, historical, confessional, verbatim definition of the concept/principle/praxis/rule/teaching/doctrine of sola scriptura. Pay close attention, you might miss it:

In the pure churches and schools these public common writings have been always regarded as the sum and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God's Word, and firmly established against the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings, and has expressly drawn this distinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord

I don't see the words sola scriptura anywhere nor do I see any scriptural references given. What I do see, is sola scripturists clinging to all seventeen words of their pet slogan as though they were written by God. They weren't written by God, they were penned by Lutheran churchmen in 1577.

Again, the official, formal, historical, confessional, verbatim definition of the concept/principle/praxis/rule/teaching/doctrine of sola scriptura offered to us by the author of post #11 doesn't make any leeway for the personal reading and private judgement of the bible by 21st century savants. No, it merely says that the bible will be the sole rule for norming doctrine among Lutherans.

Since you aren't a Lutheran, and since you're not norming any dogma the official, formal, historical, confessional, verbatim definition of the concept/principle/praxis/rule/teaching/doctrine of sola scriptura offered to us by the author of post #11 is not for you. Furthermore, in the past, I've heard you avow an alleged feature of the concept/principle/praxis/rule/teaching/doctrine of sola scriptura namely, that scripture interprets scripture. That isn't a part of the definiton offered to us in post #11. No, if your read along in your Book of Concord your will find that the authors find other writings useful :

For that we embodied the above-mentioned writing, namely, the Augsburg Confession, Apology, Smalcald Articles, Luther's Large and Small Catechisms, in the oft-mentioned Sum of our Christian doctrine, was done for the reason that these have always and everywhere been regarded as the common, unanimously accepted meaning of our churches, and, moreover, have been subscribed at that time by the chief and most enlightened theologians, and have held sway in all evangelical churches and schools.

I'm not sure if you find those writings to be of any use, but the 1689 Baptist Confession doesn't . They say:

9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 1

While this sounds like something you've said, again, nothing in the Baptist Confessions definition of sola scriptura makes any provision for your private judgement and personal bible reading. So what gives? What definition of sola scriptura are you using, one of your own making?

 

[tadoflamb]

double post

 

[topcare]

Sola scriptura - is Bible teaching - see Acts 17:11 and Gal 1:6-9. (As noted #612)

And Christians - read the Bible.

Post 11 starts with this definition



Sorry for not flooding this thread by not posting the entire long commentary in post 11 that goes far beyond the definition -- (you can click the link on the quote I just provided if you want to see all that commentary)

in Christ,

Bob

There is absolutely no where in the Bible it says to use it alone.

 

[LostMarbels]

Just hold on a minute there, the thief on the cross was not saved by sola Scriptura He was saved by the Word made Flesh.

Now, let's move on.

What is the word of God?

The thing you are missing is God made a self fulfilling plan. God is the Alpha and the Omega. God is the word. The word is Jesus. Jesus stated I am the way the truth and the life, none come to the father but by me. Jesus (the Word of God) taught in scripture, that flesh cannot reveal the secrets of God. We find in hebrews that Jesus is made high priest after the order of Melchisedec. So the word of God is our salvation, Our high priest, and our only means of reaching God.


Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Jesus, the word of God told others to rely on, and even quoted scripture.

So what is scripture?

scripture
[ ˈskripCHər ]
NOUN
the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible:
"passages of scripture"
Powered by OxfordDictionaries ·

So Jesus is telling us that anyone that believes in me, as the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

At the time of Jesus, he was living the new testament of course, so he was at that time referring to the torah. The old testament that was all ready the written word of God.

Mat_4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Mat_4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Mat_11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mat_21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Mat_26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
Mat_26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mar_1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar_7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar_9:12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
Mar_9:13 But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.
Mar_14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
Mar_14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

Jesus our Christ lived as what was written. He preached what was written. The living word of God was preaching the written word of God. The Word was living and defining the Word. That is what sola scriptura is about. The written word of God (AKA scripture) being self interpreted by the Word of God Jesus, threw revelation of the holy spirit.

God made his plan in such away that you can only come to him. Because God is all parts of the solution.

 

[BobRyan]

There is absolutely no where in the Bible it says to use it alone.

h

In post 11 the statement is not that only the Bible is inspired -- it is that the Bible is the sole standard for determining what is right and what is wrong when it comes to doctrine and practice.

As we see in Acts 17:11 - the Bible alone is the judge.

As we see in Mark 7:6-13 where the Bible alone is the judge.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus endorsed sola scriptura testing of all church tradition in Mark 7:6-13. (As noted #612)

Sola scriptura - is Bible teaching - see Acts 17:11 and Gal 1:6-9. (As noted #612)

And Christians - read the Bible.

When the same people tell us that the Bible is "just a book," that it "wasn't given to us by God," and etc....

...and then proceed to claim that the Bible is part of their denomination's version of "Holy Tradition," which is believed by them to BE divine revelation, we know that we're dealing with criticism for criticism's sake only.

Certainly it is much more straightforward to rely on Christ's example in Mark 7:6-13 and the "blessed" example of Acts 17:11 where they "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were SO"



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So many good ways to illustrate the Sola Scriptura example in scripture.

So while it is true that Acts 17:11 shows sola scriptura "in practice" -- ("They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were so")

It is Gal 1:6-9 that explains why that is such an important NT concept ...


Then you must be 100% in favor of sola scriptura testing of RCC doctrine and tradition against the actual Bible.

nice to meet you.





You stated it well yourself - that in reading the scriptures you test to "see IF those things are so" and in your case you found them to match. Not all protesting Catholics came to that conclusion nor do they to this day who leave for that very reason. But that can be said of a great many churches where someone leaves.

And why take this subject so seriously?

Paul answers that in Gal 1:6-9.

Christ answers it in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So many good ways to illustrate the Sola Scriptura example in scripture.

How do you know our doctrines are not the teaching or inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Very good! We believe that the Bible, being the inspired revelation of God, is more to be trusted than anything else--and certainly more than folktales, human speculation, custom, etc.

But I'm always open to hearing a good argument as to why these other sources of guidance MIGHT be more reliable than that which God has given to mankind or equal to it, for that matter.

Got any?

If you were truly open, you'd already know the arguments. But the way you couch it is very incorrect. We don't say they're more reliable. We say they're just as reliable, that God speaks in more ways than Scripture alone.

 

[Rick Otto]

Aside from your needing to parse your words so carefully for the sake of technical correctness, RCC doctrines don't survive the SS test; read the scriptures to see if they agree.
Rome is a big couch.

 

[BobRyan]

So many good ways to illustrate the Sola Scriptura example in scripture.

So while it is true that Acts 17:11 shows sola scriptura "in practice" -- ("They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were so")

It is Gal 1:6-9 that explains why that is such an important NT concept ...


Then you must be 100% in favor of sola scriptura testing of RCC doctrine and tradition against the actual Bible.

nice to meet you.





You stated it well yourself - that in reading the scriptures you test to "see IF those things are so" and in your case you found them to match. Not all protesting Catholics came to that conclusion nor do they to this day who leave for that very reason. But that can be said of a great many churches where someone leaves.

And why take this subject so seriously?

Paul answers that in Gal 1:6-9.

Christ answers it in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

.

How do you know our doctrines are not the teaching or inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

I don't find prayers to the dead, bowing down to images, purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary by her mother, infallible Popes, confecting the body and divinity of Christ, the extermination of heretics, the right to edit the Word of God, infant baptism, A sort-of formal levitical priesthood for the church,etc... in the Bible and promoted by the NT church.

Nevertheless , the sola scriptura doctrine is not about what other people choose it is about what you choose. How do you know your own church doctrine measures up to the Word of God - without "doing the math"???

That is something each person asks themselves when they read texts like Acts 17:11, Gal 1:6-9, Mark 7:6-13.

For example - at one point TadOfLamb was claiming that he "did the math" and found his church denomination's doctrines to pass the test.

I certainly would make that Clam about the Seventh-day Adventist doctrines in my own case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rick Otto]

There is absolutely no where in the Bible it says to use it alone.

Yet that is exactly how Paul examples SS with the Thessalonians.

I know this, because this is the standard that the sola scripturists have laid out for every one else.

Tad, far be it from me to disagree, but for MoreCoffee's sake, we're gonna need a name and a quotation, thank you.

 

[barryatlake]

Rick Otto, I will repeat, the Catholic Church doctrine must agree with Sacred Scripture/Sacred Tradition . What you believe that the Bible is the sole infallible authority for God's word. That belief presupposes everything that you wish to argue. But here is a stumbling block for you. You believe that all of God's revelation is found in the Bible, and that nothing outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. This is the erroneous doctrine of "sola Scriptura." What destroys your sola Scriptura position is the "canon of Scripture." The canon of Scripture is the list of all the books that are in the Bible. But God did not give us an inspired table of contents to figure this out. And yet knowing what books belong in the Bible and what books do not is necessary for our salvation, because adhering to uninspired books could lead us to err. Here is your dilemma: knowing what books belong in the Bible and what books do not is a revelation given to us by God, but this comes to us from outside the Bible. This revelation was given to Christ's Catholic Church (the Church compiled the Bible at the end of the fourth century). This utterly destroys your protestant sola Scriptura position, because it proves God gave us a revelation outside of the Bible. And if He gave the Catholic Church this revelation, how come He can't give her other revelations.

 

[Rick Otto]

adhering to uninspired books could lead us to err

...and so you have.

 

[BobRyan]

Rick Otto, I will repeat, the Catholic Church doctrine must agree with Sacred Scripture/Sacred Tradition . .

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ's argument would have failed miserably had they a legitimate claim to circular reasoning of the form "Our tradition agrees with our tradition - or else the Bible".

Rick Otto, I will repeat, the Catholic Church doctrine must agree with Sacred Scripture/Sacred Tradition . What you believe that the Bible is the sole infallible authority for God's word. That belief presupposes everything that you wish to argue. But here is a stumbling block for you. You believe that all of God's revelation is found in the Bible, and that nothing outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. This is the erroneous doctrine of "sola Scriptura." What destroys your sola Scriptura position is the "canon of Scripture." The canon of Scripture is the list of all the books that are in the Bible. But God did not give us an inspired table of contents to figure this out. And yet knowing what books belong in the Bible and what books do not is necessary for our salvation, because adhering to uninspired books could lead us to err. Here is your dilemma: knowing what books belong in the Bible and what books do not is a revelation given to us by God, but this comes to us from outside the Bible. This revelation was given to Christ's Catholic Church (the Church compiled the Bible at the end of the fourth century). This utterly destroys your protestant sola Scriptura position, because it proves God gave us a revelation outside of the Bible. And if He gave the Catholic Church this revelation, how come He can't give her other revelations.

Every denomination will make similar claims to having a great deal of trust in their own magisterium -- all blessed by God.

And I think we can all agree that the Jewish church leaders in Mark 7:6-13 were saying much the same thing about their own ability to come up with scripture and having been started by God at Sinai.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LostMarbels]

Rick Otto, I will repeat, the Catholic Church doctrine must agree with Sacred Scripture/Sacred Tradition . What you believe that the Bible is the sole infallible authority for God's word. That belief presupposes everything that you wish to argue. But here is a stumbling block for you. You believe that all of God's revelation is found in the Bible, and that nothing outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. This is the erroneous doctrine of "sola Scriptura." What destroys your sola Scriptura position is the "canon of Scripture." The canon of Scripture is the list of all the books that are in the Bible. But God did not give us an inspired table of contents to figure this out. And yet knowing what books belong in the Bible and what books do not is necessary for our salvation, because adhering to uninspired books could lead us to err. Here is your dilemma: knowing what books belong in the Bible and what books do not is a revelation given to us by God, but this comes to us from outside the Bible. This revelation was given to Christ's Catholic Church (the Church compiled the Bible at the end of the fourth century). This utterly destroys your protestant sola Scriptura position, because it proves God gave us a revelation outside of the Bible. And if He gave the Catholic Church this revelation, how come He can't give her other revelations.

How can you not understand that anytime you look outside of the word of God you are no longer in the word of God?

I know what books belong in the Bible because they are in there.

Anytime you have to look for proof outside of know subject matter you are looking to other sources to explain what is already laid out.