Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Wolf_Says]

While there are varying dates given for each book, generally it is agreed that all books were written prior to 100AD.....

This Bible as a whole was not introduced until the late 4th century.

 

[civilwarbuff]

This Bible as a whole was not introduced until the late 4th century.

But the books existed prior to that, did they not? Did they not exist as soon as they were written?

 

[Wolf_Says]

They existed, but so did false books such as the Gospel of Peter, Acts of Pilot ect. The books of the NT were not declared to be divinely inspired until the late 4th century.

 

[PapaZoom]

They existed, but so did false books such as the Gospel of Peter, Acts of Pilot ect. The books of the NT were not declared to be divinely inspired until the late 4th century.

And? What about it? What difference does this make?

 

[Wolf_Says]

And? What about it? What difference does this make?

If authority is given to scripture, where did the authority come from? It obviously came from God. But Jesus started a Church, not a Bible, and it was through this Church that the Bible came to be known to the world.

So logically, the flow of authority would then have to go God ---> Jesus' Church ---> Bible since authority moves down. Therefore, it is the Church that Jesus started that has the authority to interpret scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Your "correction" is not even correct. Let me quote John 1:1 for you to read exactly that Jesus is called the Word, not the word of God or even God's Word as I used.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

You dismiss my post over the capitalization of Word. Don't be so daft with my simple statements.
For the legalist: Point 2 does not state that Scripture is the Word/Jesus.
Point 2 is Scripture is God's word, recorded.
There no capitalization.

Try again. And, while your at, how about proving your other source of truth.
Do you really not believe 3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true?

OK, let me explain it to you. The Word of God is not confined to what's written in the Bible. Therefore the Bible is not THE Word of God. It is a subset of the Word of God. And capitalization doesn't make any difference.

 

[PapaZoom]

If authority is given to scripture, where did the authority come from? It obviously came from God. But Jesus started a Church, not a Bible, and it was through this Church that the Bible came to be known to the world.

So logically, the flow of authority would then have to go God ---> Jesus' Church ---> Bible since authority moves down. Therefore, it is the Church that Jesus started that has the authority to interpret scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

So ultimately the authority comes from God. And it contains instructions for the Church. How to operate, corrections for handling problems and issues, and it lays out the doctrines of the Church.

The Bible is not a book. It's books. And with respect to the epistles, they are simply letters to the Churches. Churches that were in error and in need of correction. The epistles cover a lot of material and we "profit" from what's contained in them.

I don't think that it's logical that the authority flows from the Church to the Bible. The Bible guides the Church, not the other way around. So more logical is that the Authority flows from God to the Church with the Bible inserted in between which is God's words to the Church.

As to the Church, it's true that the church is catholic. But not Catholic (In my view). The Catholics claim they are the truth Church with the authority and outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation (I may be wrong on the last point). As far as I know, the Orthodox Church makes the same claim.

I do not believe that God, knowing His creation, expected there to be one organization structure called the Church. Israel couldn't even manage that and God was directly involved with them. Even the Catholic Church has splinter groups. No, the Church is comprised of all true believers regardless of what gathering one attends. And the central authority that guides each separate body Is God speaking to us through His word. The Bible is simply a collection of that God inspired authority.

 

[Root of Jesse]

- tradition and church system is man-made and man-manage regardless of how it claims to be founded by christ.
- scripture is God's written revelation of Himself to humanity
- suggesting the man-made and man-manage is subordinate or equal in authority to God's written revelation is totally ludicrous.
- even christ only has negative tones about tradition in the gospels, however many of his arguments are 'it is written..'​

There's two kinds of tradition. Sacred Tradition is God's word. 't'radition is man made. Paul told his followers to abide by the traditions he taught them, did he not?

 

[Job8]

2) is false. Jesus Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1

Yes, while the Lord Jesus Christ is called the Word of God, His written words are Scripture (and that is from Genesis to Revelation), since He is no longer physically on earth. And that's the whole point.

I have seen this specious argument over and over again, but it does not address the issue of Scripture being the only Divinely inspired revelation. Even Muslims have more regard for their Koran than some Christians.

If Scripture is the Word of God, any teaching or practice that cannot be found in Scripture is FALSE. And any other gospel is accursed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

So ultimately the authority comes from God. And it contains instructions for the Church. How to operate, corrections for handling problems and issues, and it lays out the doctrines of the Church.

The Bible is not a book. It's books. And with respect to the epistles, they are simply letters to the Churches. Churches that were in error and in need of correction. The epistles cover a lot of material and we "profit" from what's contained in them.

I don't think that it's logical that the authority flows from the Church to the Bible. The Bible guides the Church, not the other way around. So more logical is that the Authority flows from God to the Church with the Bible inserted in between which is God's words to the Church.

Papa, if the Bible guides the Church, not the other way around, what guided the Church before the Bible was compiled?

As to the Church, it's true that the church is catholic. But not Catholic (In my view). The Catholics claim they are the truth Church with the authority and outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation (I may be wrong on the last point). As far as I know, the Orthodox Church makes the same claim.

In the beginning there was only the catholic church, and even now, there is only the catholic church, in that "C"atholic is seen more as a brand, than a description. We Catholics believe it's a description, rather than a brand or division.

I do not believe that God, knowing His creation, expected there to be one organization structure called the Church. Israel couldn't even manage that and God was directly involved with them. Even the Catholic Church has splinter groups. No, the Church is comprised of all true believers regardless of what gathering one attends. And the central authority that guides each separate body Is God speaking to us through His word. The Bible is simply a collection of that God inspired authority.

This describes the people, the institutions, not the faith.

 

[redleghunter]

The church preached the gospel before a word of the NT was written. God's Word had been spoken.

Amen!

Then the words were written down and distributed over the first century of Christianity. Would you agree with that?

 

[Root of Jesse]

But the books existed prior to that, did they not? Did they not exist as soon as they were written?

Yes, but not as a comprehensive definition of Christian faith.

 

[PapaZoom]

Papa, if the Bible guides the Church, not the other way around, what guided the Church before the Bible was compiled?

The Apostles. And they appointed leaders of local bodies and taught them in the Way. Those teachings often took form in letters which still guide us today. Where there were errors, a letter followed to correct the error and instruct the Church.
Those letters were collected, distributed, copied and further distributed. Eventually they were put in the collection we call the Bible.

In the beginning there was only the catholic church, and even now, there is only the catholic church, in that "C"atholic is seen more as a brand, than a description.

There still is only the catholic Church. Anyone falling outside of that isn't part of the true Church.

We Catholics believe it's a description, rather than a brand or division.This describes the people, the institutions, not the faith.

I think I can agree with this. But what does describe the faith? I think the Bible is sufficient for that and nothing else is needed with respect to revelations from God. How the Bible is correctly understood is another matter altogether.

I find it rather silly that someone can't love and follow Christ unless they belong to the "true" church (like the RCC claim). The Orthodox have a problem with this claim as they don't even have Orthodox Churches into all the world. There's no OC anywhere near me. The Catholic Church has plenty churches near me. But both claim they are the exclusive true Church. I know there are lots of others that make that same claim. I see no real evidence of that claim. And I don't think God, in His wisdom and foreknowledge, would set things up this way. It would deliberately exclude millions and millions of people who love Him and have sacrificed much to follow Him.

 

[Albion]

Sorry, that is NOT the definition of SS that I know of. .

And THAT is probably the most important comment made in a long while on these SS threads. If the term isn't understood (as you do not), then the discussion is stillborn and gets us nowhere.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Apostles. And they appointed leaders of local bodies and taught them in the Way. Those teachings often took form in letters which still guide us today. Where there were errors, a letter followed to correct the error and instruct the Church.
Those letters were collected, distributed, copied and further distributed. Eventually they were put in the collection we call the Bible.

Actually, they weren't all put in the collection we call the Bible. Many are not in the Canon of Scripture, but they still guide us today, because Jesus told those Apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide them (and their successors) in ALL Truth.


There still is only the catholic Church. Anyone falling outside of that isn't part of the true Church.



I think I can agree with this. But what does describe the faith? I think the Bible is sufficient for that and nothing else is needed with respect to revelations from God. How the Bible is correctly understood is another matter altogether.
[/quote]If the Bible was sufficient, why were there so many arguments over the nature of God, the Trinity, and so on? Why did they need meetings to gather together to debate these things and decide what the Apostles and Jesus meant by what he said?

I find it rather silly that someone can't love and follow Christ unless they belong to the "true" church (like the RCC claim).

I think they believe this, in that there is only one "Truth".

The Orthodox have a problem with this claim as they don't even have Orthodox Churches into all the world. There's no OC anywhere near me. The Catholic Church has plenty churches near me. But both claim they are the exclusive true Church. I know there are lots of others that make that same claim. I see no real evidence of that claim. And I don't think God, in His wisdom and foreknowledge, would set things up this way. It would deliberately exclude millions and millions of people who love Him and have sacrificed much to follow Him.

God didn't set it up this way. Men divided, God never did. I believe the Orthodox and the Catholic Church (not RCC) are very close in belief, and some of our brothers agree. Also, I see the Church as having very open arms to anyone, though we reserve the Eucharist for those who have stated their agreement as to what it is.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And THAT is probably the most important comment made in a long while on these SS threads. If the term isn't understood (as you do not), then the discussion is stillborn and gets us nowhere.

And yet, when asked, you get many different answers as to what SS is...

 

[Albion]

And yet, when asked, you get many different answers as to what SS is...

I reject that as incorrect. While you may say that "you've heard" from somewhere or other, there have been several posters on all of these SS forums who have explained and explained again, in the most careful terms, the correct understanding and where mistakes have been posted. I'd recommend a reading of them to anyone who remains in doubt.

The usual errors are 1. that every truth is supposed to be in the Bible, 2. that SS means everyone's interpretation of the Bible is as good as any other, 3. that the Bible is supposed to be self-explanatory, 4. that the Bible itself is silent about the place or role of Scripture in determining doctrine, or 5. that the Bible instructs us to use "Holy Tradition" instead or in addition, whereas the verse refers to traditions in the sense of customs and does not say that any new doctrines are to be developed that way).

 

[samir]

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.

Jesus is God's Word. God's word isn't limited to a book. Everything Jesus said is God's word even if it wasn't written down in one of your books.

3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

Everything God says, written or unwritten, is incontrovertibly true.

4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.

You can't prove the 73 books of scripture are true so why demand that Christians prove tradition is true?

5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.

Neither has scripture proven to be true either.

By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.

No. Without tradition, you wouldn't have any scripture to pretend to follow.

Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.

So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.

First, show us that each and every one of the 73 books in the bible is true.

 

[Albion]

Jesus is God's Word. God's word isn't limited to a book. Everything Jesus said is God's word even if it wasn't written down in one of your books.

Incorrect use of the word "Word."

Neither has scripture proven to be true either.

But we believe it to be true, and that's assumed by the nature of the question.

No. Without tradition, you wouldn't have any scripture to pretend to follow.

Incorrect use of the word "tradition."

 

[Root of Jesse]

I reject that as incorrect. While you may say that "you've heard" from somewhere or other, there have been several posters on all of these SS forums who have explained and explained again, in the most careful terms, the correct understanding and where mistakes have been posted. I'd recommend a reading of them to anyone who remains in doubt.

The usual errors are 1. that every truth is supposed to be in the Bible, 2. that SS means everyone's interpretation of the Bible is as good as any other, 3. that the Bible is supposed to be self-explanatory, 4. that the Bible itself is silent about the place or role of Scripture in determining doctrine, or 5. that the Bible instructs us to use "Holy Tradition" instead or in addition, whereas the verse refers to traditions in the sense of customs and does not say that any new doctrines are to be developed that way).

I'd be delighted if you could point me to the multitude of explainations.
On the other hand, I don't believe that it means that 'every truth is in the Bible, that it means that everyone's interpretation is as good as any other, that the Bible is self-explanatory, that it is silent about the place or role of Scripture in determining doctrine. Number 5 is exactly what the Bible instructs us-to use what Paul taught (of which a subset is written in Scripture), as well as Scripture, which, at the time, consisted of the Old Testament in some form.