Sola Scriptura believers, please explain this.

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think your criticism points the specific attitude Sola Scriptura which tends to lead people towards. That if something is not in the bible the person won't believe it (a not so uncommon evangelical attitude).

What is an especially good thing to make note of is the literacy rate in the ancient world being exceptionally low and books being something not come upon easily. You could not practice sola scriptura (relying on the bible as the ultimate authority or relying on it's teachings alone for salvation) if you were a poor peasant, so then Sola Scriptura in practice could only ever be done by the educated and well off. You literally had to rely on Church leadership or someone trained to convey that information.

I think this poses a unique problem for the Protestant because without access to the bible directly, free of the interpretations of corruptible men all one can rely on is those who have read it and gave exposition of it, the Christianity practiced in the ancient world was imperfect. We know that to be the means by which the Church had received the word, through it's leaders, the priests and Bishops. Ideally it would have been better to receive Paul's letter to the Romans alone than to receive Paul's interpretation alongside of it, since Scripture is self interpreting on Sola Scriptura (it has to be or it cannot work).

Sola Scriptura is at heart a departure from how the Church has always worked.

 

[112358]

Sola Scriptura is at heart a departure from how the Church has always worked.

More accurately: the church (in the context I assume you use the term) is at heart a departure from how Sola Scriptura has always worked.

 

[A_Thinker]

What is an especially good thing to make note of is the literacy rate in the ancient world being exceptionally low and books being something not come upon easily. You could not practice sola scriptura (relying on the bible as the ultimate authority or relying on it's teachings alone for salvation) if you were a poor peasant, so then Sola Scriptura in practice could only ever be done by the educated and well off. You literally had to rely on Church leadership or someone trained to convey that information.

I think this poses a unique problem for the Protestant because without access to the bible directly, free of the interpretations of corruptible men all one can rely on is those who have read it and gave exposition of it, the Christianity practiced in the ancient world was imperfect.

Sola Scriptura means that christian teachings are BASED in the scriptures, not that every man/woman has to have access to the scriptures.

This serves to give every christian teaching tradition the SAME BASIS for their teachings. Therefore, no group could ever say that they had a BASIS for teaching that is UNIQUE from the other groups. Also, no group could modify the BASIS for what ever reason.

Christ said that He desired christians to be united. Paul said that we should all be saying the SAME thing. Such is not possible unless we are all working from the SAME UNCHANGING BASIS.

Allowing the BASIS to be changed means that christians of the PAST operated from a different BASIS than christians of a later time. All christian teaching should be based in the easily demonstrable teachings of the Apostles ... which we KNOW because they were written into the SCRIPTURES.

 

[Albion]

What is an especially good thing to make note of is the literacy rate in the ancient world being exceptionally low and books being something not come upon easily. You could not practice sola scriptura (relying on the bible as the ultimate authority or relying on it's teachings alone for salvation) if you were a poor peasant, so then Sola Scriptura in practice could only ever be done by the educated and well off. You literally had to rely on Church leadership or someone trained to convey that information.

Nothing in that paragraph poses a problem. However, it is a good idea not to talk as though anyone practices Sola Scriptura. The point of Sola Scriptura is this--What is the highest authority when it comes to doctrine? That is not a matter of practicing something. If it takes an educated man to explain the Bible to an illiterate one, the source is still the same.

I think this poses a unique problem for the Protestant because without access to the bible directly, free of the interpretations of corruptible men all one can rely on is those who have read it and gave exposition of it

The same as for Tradition in the Catholic churches, you mean? Then do you believe that unless every church member understands everything written by every Church Father, Tradition is rendered inoperable or useless?

 

[redleghunter]

Eureka, you finally give a definition.

So the highest truth you hold from which all else flows in your opinion is that
-"Sola Scriptura means that everything necessary for our salvation is found in God's word"
Because without that definition, nothing from scripture is then valid.

Yet that statement is nowhere found in scripture or anything simmilar.

So therefore sola scriptura is not necessary for salvation, because by your own definition it has to be there to be needed for salvation.

In short you just totally contradicted yourself.


Worse than that Scripture disagrees.
It says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church"
NOT SCRIPTURE

In the catholic church we believe that scripture is materially sufficient , not formally sufficient, which is at least is logically consistent UNLIKE sola scriptura

Perhaps his statements may be contradictory after being run through the convoluted logic used to come to said conclusion.

 

[Deadworm]

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." --John 16:12

Rev. Alex, you might have more effectively made your point if you had also quoted the next verse:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth (16:12-13)."

There is no grounds for the claim that the New Testament canon completely fulfills this expected new revelation and guidance form the Spirit. More importantly, you overlook the most relevant verse of all in the same Johannine context:

7 But very truly I tell you, it is to your advantage that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (16:7)."

Jesus actually tells us that we're better off without His physical presence! Inner guidance and revelation from" the Advocate"--the Holy Spirit--is preferable to Jesus' presence and the Spirit's work is not limited to the NT canon, which in any case, received no consensus until after 200 AD.

Too see just how incomplete our Bible is in its treatment of vital issues, just consider Didache 4:2" "Thou shalt not procure an abortion." This prohibition is found in the Two Way section of the Didache, which was composed prior to any of our NT Gospels, though the final edition of the Didache was completed around 95 AD. No such anti-abortion prohibition is explicitly found in our Bible, with the result that many Christians actually try to justify a pro-choice perspective from Scripture! This problem could have been avoided if the prohibition in Didache had been included in the biblical canon.

 

[redleghunter]

Sola Scriptura is at heart a departure from how the Church has always worked.

Not the NT or shall I post how Jesus and the apostles quoted from the OT?

 

[thecolorsblend]

We could talk for hours on what exactly apostolic tradition was at their time as opposed to what that invokes today.

All of which would end with the undeniable conclusion that they didn’t regard scripture as their sole authority.

 

[redleghunter]

with the result that many Christians actually try to justify a pro-choice perspective from Scripture!

And their eisegesis is completely refuted using Holy Scriptures. I'll ping you the next time it happens.

 

[Albion]

All of which would end with the undeniable conclusion that they didn’t regard scripture as their sole authority.

They said that they did.

But I am open to you showing me anywhere that a Church Father said that he believed some teaching because of "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition."

 

[A_Thinker]

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth (16:12-13)."

A study on the ministry of the Holy Spirit seems to indicate that He will NOT bring new doctrine ... but, instead, REMIND and AFFIRM the previous teachings of Christ ...

John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority,
but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

There is companion scripture which says the the Holy Spirit will bring Christ's teachings to our remembrance.

Too see just how incomplete our Bible is in its treatment of vital issues, just consider Didache 4:2" "Thou shalt not procure an abortion." This prohibition is found in the Two Way section of the Didache, which was composed prior to any of our NT Gospels, though the final edition of the Didache was completed around 95 AD. No such anti-abortion prohibition is explicitly found in our Bible, with the result that many Christians actually try to justify a pro-choice perspective from Scripture! This problem could have been avoided if the prohibition in Didache had been included in the biblical canon.

Then WHY wasn't it included in the CANON ?

And how can we distinguish between using the Didache as a basis for christian teaching... and not the Book of Mormon ?

 

[redleghunter]

All of which would end with the undeniable conclusion that they didn’t regard scripture as their sole authority.

Considering the early fathers quotes on apostolic traditions, all are derived from what was "handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

St Irenaeus opined:

I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and talk, … his general mode of life and personal appearance, along with the discourses he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar interaction with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord. He would call their words to remembrance. Whatever things he had heard from them regarding the Lord … Polycarp, having heard from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, "Fragments of Irenaeus" ch. 2)
CHURCH FATHERS: Fragments (Irenaeus)​

Now we do see Irenaeus and quite a few others mention that if something is not spelled out or deduced from Scriptures that such should have the affirmation of the majority of churches or Sees. What those traditions, mostly not of apostolic origin, truly are is quite a debate between even Rome and the East.

 

[Major1]

"With many such parables He [Jesus] spoke the Word to them." --Mark 4:33

Looks like not all the parables are recorded.

"He began to teach them many things." --Mark 6:34

We're not told what these "many things" are.

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." --John 16:12

Once again, we're never told what these things are. Perhaps these "many things " were the teachings alluded to in the opening of Acts, but even then, very limited information is given.

"Now, Jesus did many other things in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book." --John 20:30
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were they all to be written down, I suppose the world itself could not contain all the books that would be written." --John 21:25

These verses seem to really kill the notion of seeing the Bible alone as sufficient for understanding all of God's teachings.

Many times over, in every Gospel, Jesus is mentioned as teaching, preaching, or otherwise explaining the Word to all who were listening, without the Bible saying what, exactly, Jesus was teaching. Far more times, Jesus is healing, staying in Jerico, in the synagogues, or doing something else where He could very likely be teaching, but as usual, what He taught isn't recorded.
Even where He is teaching, nowhere does it say that the words that were written down were the only things He taught! It's very logical that He taught more than is recorded, for if a crowd of people has traveled to hear Him speak, they will obviously want to hear more than a couple parables; who travels to a concert, hears 1 good song, and the concert ends?

Clearly, not everything that Jesus taught is recorded in the pages of the Bible. It's very likely that He taught about such issues as purgatory, Mary's sinlessness, the papicy, and other controversial subjects; after all, if not all of His teachings are in the Bible, then saying "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that" doesn't hold as much weight as Sola Scriptura beievers would like to believe.

I didn't make this thread with the intention of debating individual issues, such as purgatory & Mary's sinlessness; rather, I would just like explanations as to how Sola Scriptura is logical, when Scripture itself admits that not all of Christ's teachings are in the Bible.

For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible.
What is sola scriptura?

 

[Major1]

A study on the ministry of the Holy Spirit seems to indicate that He will NOT bring new doctrine ... but, instead, REMIND and AFFIRM the previous teachings of Christ ...

John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority,
but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

There is companion scripture which says the the Holy Spirit will bring Christ's teachings to our remembrance.



Then WHY wasn't it included in the CANON ?

And how can we distinguish between using the Didache as a basis for christian teaching... and not the Book of Mormon ?

Isn't Exodus 20:13 clear enough......
"Thou shalt not murder".

 

[JacksBratt]

I think your criticism points the specific attitude Sola Scriptura which tends to lead people towards. That if something is not in the bible the person won't believe it (a not so uncommon evangelical attitude).

That is a very vague statement to make....

The Bible doesn't say how to build a fire or go "buy low and sell high". It doesn't say that sugar is bad for you or that you cannot refreeze meat...

There are millions of things that the bible does not say that are very true..

It's when you start saying things, that are of huge religious and theological significance, are true even if the biblical scriptures don't say they are, or even mention any sniff of it.

What is an especially good thing to make note of is the literacy rate in the ancient world being exceptionally low and books being something not come upon easily. You could not practice sola scriptura (relying on the bible as the ultimate authority or relying on it's teachings alone for salvation) if you were a poor peasant, so then Sola Scriptura in practice could only ever be done by the educated and well off. You literally had to rely on Church leadership or someone trained to convey that information.

Isn't this the very reason that Martin Luther nailed his letter to the church door in the first place. Due to the fact that the RC church was using it's control of what the scriptures actually said, to control the people and oppress them?

I think this poses a unique problem for the Protestant because without access to the bible directly, free of the interpretations of corruptible men all one can rely on is those who have read it and gave exposition of it, the Christianity practiced in the ancient world was imperfect. We know that to be the means by which the Church had received the word, through it's leaders, the priests and Bishops. Ideally it would have been better to receive Paul's letter to the Romans alone than to receive Paul's interpretation alongside of it, since Scripture is self interpreting on Sola Scriptura (it has to be or it cannot work).

On the contrary... they should have given them actual, real and total access to the scriptures to the people. Instead of making it unlawful to have them.

Sola Scriptura is at heart a departure from how the Church has always worked.

Thank Goodness that people were given access to sola scriptura and given the right to be educated and read it so that they could see why the departure from that particular system of "church" could be possible and the reasons why were apparent to all.

 

[Soyeong]

"With many such parables He [Jesus] spoke the Word to them." --Mark 4:33

Looks like not all the parables are recorded.

"He began to teach them many things." --Mark 6:34

We're not told what these "many things" are.

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." --John 16:12

Once again, we're never told what these things are. Perhaps these "many things " were the teachings alluded to in the opening of Acts, but even then, very limited information is given.

"Now, Jesus did many other things in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book." --John 20:30
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were they all to be written down, I suppose the world itself could not contain all the books that would be written." --John 21:25

These verses seem to really kill the notion of seeing the Bible alone as sufficient for understanding all of God's teachings.

Many times over, in every Gospel, Jesus is mentioned as teaching, preaching, or otherwise explaining the Word to all who were listening, without the Bible saying what, exactly, Jesus was teaching. Far more times, Jesus is healing, staying in Jerico, in the synagogues, or doing something else where He could very likely be teaching, but as usual, what He taught isn't recorded.
Even where He is teaching, nowhere does it say that the words that were written down were the only things He taught! It's very logical that He taught more than is recorded, for if a crowd of people has traveled to hear Him speak, they will obviously want to hear more than a couple parables; who travels to a concert, hears 1 good song, and the concert ends?

Clearly, not everything that Jesus taught is recorded in the pages of the Bible. It's very likely that He taught about such issues as purgatory, Mary's sinlessness, the papicy, and other controversial subjects; after all, if not all of His teachings are in the Bible, then saying "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that" doesn't hold as much weight as Sola Scriptura beievers would like to believe.

I didn't make this thread with the intention of debating individual issues, such as purgatory & Mary's sinlessness; rather, I would just like explanations as to how Sola Scriptura is logical, when Scripture itself admits that not all of Christ's teachings are in the Bible.

There is nothing in Sola Scriptura that says that it is not valuable to have human teachers, just that anything that is taught needs to be in accordance with God's Word. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if it was true. The NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT in order to establish that it supported what they said and to show that they didn't depart from it either to the right or to the left. So all Sola Scriptura is saying is that we should act like the Bereans before accepting the teachings of any man, even Paul.

 

[Mountainmike]

Was that addressed to me? If so, I have given a definition for this about twenty times, I am sure.

See my comment, in an earlier post, about what and how often Scripture speaks to this.


Has someone said that Sola Scriptura is necessary for salvation? I have not.

You said it.
In saying that you regard scripture as containing all truth needed for salvation.

Sola scriptura is refuted on basic logic.
Since nowhere does scripture say it, indeed scripture says nothing about it, (despite the weak attempts to pretend otherwise), indeed worse scripture refutes it stating the church not scripture is the pillar of truth. and so sola scriptura cannot be true without being logically self defeating.

Simple logic is all is needed.

Historically. Logically and scripturally, sola scriptura is false.
However many times you pretend otherwise.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't have time to,go blow for blow,

But the " pillar of truth" is the " household of God" which we know from OT means the physical church.
We also know he succession of apostles can " bind and loose" which is how the church speaks on doctrine and declares truth, indeed to select the canon, and creed as it did in council.

indeed paul does give guidance when he says "stay true to what we taught by word of mouth and letter" which shows the obvious truth... the church hands truth down by tradition, paradosis. It was never sola scriptura.

The authority on interpretation of doctrine and teaching mandate is why the church is thevpillar of truth. " how can they teach if they are not sent?"


Which is how we know that real presence of body and blood is the correct interpretation - thevfirst disciples of apostles say so. That is the truth by tradition,

Scripture only came later, and makes no claim to be all of the truth of faith, nor is it a complete manual.

How about this:

Matthew 4:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.




No "scripture" is needed for salvation.... Many are saved that have never heard scripture....

However, those that hear the scripture are saved by the events that are recorded in it. Not by the scripture itself.

Scripture never saved anyone.





Check this out: What does 1 Timothy 3:15 mean when it says that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

It gives the proper context in which that scripture is to be taken.

So, in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul is not referring to “the church” as the source of truth or the creator of truth. He’s saying “the church” is what holds up and holds firm the truth in the world. Again, this interpretation fits with Paul’s warnings not to be swayed by carnal philosophies (Colossians 2:8), false teachers (2 Timothy 4:3), or any person who changes the gospel (Galatians 1:8). Rather than fall prey to false doctrine, we’re to compare teachers to the Word of God (Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Timothy 3:16; Romans 15:4).

“The church,” that is, the entire population of Christian believers, bears the earthly responsibility of holding up the truth of the gospel. The ultimate basis of that truth is Christ, not the proclamations or infallibility of members of that body. Paul is calling on believers to care for the structure that “supports” or “props up” our message to the world. First Timothy 3:15 cannot be taken to mean that the church itself is the source or standard for truth.

 

[112358]

Historically. Logically and scripturally, sola scriptura is false.

If this were true, which it is not, then there is no basis for authority of any kind. There is no morality. There is no good and evil. There is no absolute truth. Indeed there is no Christianity.

As stated already, without Sola Scriptura, literally "anything goes". Logic, if appropriately applied, DEMANDS Sola Scriptura.

 

[Blade]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.". We find Jesus saying my sheep hear my voice. We find Jesus had to go so the sweet sweet Holy Spirit could come. We find the Holy Spirit TALKS.. its written.

For you.. was He or is He alive or not? Is He REAL or not? I read He as perfect could not did not sin. He said I am in you. Its also written "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?". "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

So.. WHY don't you ask Him? WHICH one of us is right? What if you just tossed out what everyone said.. and picked up that book and read it as if you never heard of it before? And then just believed what it said? If we just take PART of a verse...if your son/daughter asks for bread would you give them a stone? WHY do you believe John 3:16? WHY is that true and yet "what ever you ask the Father in my name He will do it".. You read me saying SWEET SWEET Holy Spirit. Well in a bible study one night thats ALL I did.. I just did what JESUS said. I asked the Father for the holy spirit.. they prayed.. Praying I mean.. read what is written and then stopped and said.. thats it you got it. THEY took GOD at HIS word. NOTHING happen when they stopped. NO ONE said a word. I got up and thought.. nothing.. I go to sit down and BAM it just came out. EXACTLY as I found out SO many years later just like in the NT.

Not about GETTING ...its about.. TALKING...KNOWING HIM. In this world there is only ONE truth. Jesus is the only way, the only truth and the only life. I am sorry for butting in here. I just wanted to say.. you have a GOD in you.. man get that? GOD IS IN YOU. How CLOSER did you want need expect Him to be? Have FAITH that HE cant lie..just be like a child and believe. If you read and doubt.. sorry you will not get anything. He can NEVER go against your free will. No matter what we personally believe.. thats not HIS word. And what is written is not more nor less its perfect in what we need in this life period.