Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Bible2+ said:

Note that the Bible is also the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4), and it is in no way dead.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick [alive], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This is because the Bible is the sword of God's Holy Spirit:

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God . . .

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

One of Satan's prime aims is to get people to reject all or parts of God's Word, and start believing something else which sounds better to them as humans (Genesis 3:1-6, Matthew 16:21-23; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3-4), but which cannot save their souls, so that they will end up suffering in fire and brimstone with Satan and his fallen angels forever (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11).

Christian faith must not be based solely on heart feelings, which can be very deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Proverbs 14:12), but must be also a rational/intellectual enterprise. For saving faith requires mental assent (Philippians 3:15-16, Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25, Romans 8:6) to Biblical doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 John 1:9-10; 1 Timothy 6:3, Titus 1:9), and continuing to remember that doctrine (1 Corinthians 15:2; 2 Peter 3:1-2; 2 Corinthians 11:3).

For example, in order for people to be saved from hell, they must believe (and continue to believe to the end: Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2) the Biblical doctrine that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 20:31, John 3:36, 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins, and physically resurrected from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

Click to expand...

The bible is a man-made artifact used to make available selected texts to a laity.

The bible is never the Word of God because the Word of God is not an idol: It is a Living Entity. The identity of Christ is the Word of God.

God put the entire Word of God on our hearts as per the New Covenant. We pollute this by making doctrine that confuses very simple things - like making an idol out of a text, and calling it the Word of God. You do not need a biblical canon to be saved; you need Christ.

The Word of God is Living right now; If you burned all canonical and apocryphal texts, THE WORD OF GOD would have never been consumed by one ember. It is important we realize Christ is the literal word of God, and there is NO substitution.

If you meditate/pray/talk to our Father, He will show you just how useless a bible is when compared to the real Word of God - though it may be a decent place for a young Christian to start.

Albion said:

OK, but it is not a mere presumption like Holy Tradition is. The Bible itself testifies to its authorship and also that it is of ultimate value for knowing the Almighty's will.

Click to expand...

One could say that it's presumptuous to maintain that Tradition shouldn't be included as a source of revelation, that the Church can't have such a lived experience that has continued to inform her understanding of the faith since the beginning. Especially since Scripture itself gives evidence of just such teachings.

Kaon said:

The bible is a man-made artifact used to make available selected texts to a laity.

The bible is never the Word of God because the Word of God is not an idol: It is a Living Entity. The identity of Christ is the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Lets clear this up. The term is used in the Bible and by religious leaders for both of those, but most often it is the Bible that is referred to as the word of God and Jesus Christ just as the Word.

fhansen said:

One could say that it's presumptuous to maintain that Tradition shouldn't be included as a source of revelation....

Click to expand...

Well, it is just a theory, you know.

Albion said:

Not only is it not "a given." It's not even correct.

Click to expand...

Not everyone will accept Divine Revelation no matter what ithe source. That is the given I meant.

I'm sorry for my lack of charity in my last post.

Not sure what you are referring to that is not correct.

AnticipateHisComing said:

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.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

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

By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.

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.

Click to expand...

There are more important things to discuss than Sola Scriptura.

Such as the idea that the Father turned away from the Son on the cross. Or the idea that the Son was at any moment separated from the Father. Or the idea that the Son can in any way receive wrath from the Father. Or the idea that God's wrath needed to be appeased or satisfied by the murder of His Son.

All of the above notions are more important since they pertain to Christology. And we would do well to be of one mind in our Christological beliefs before turning our attention to things like Sola Scriptura. For I myself find it hard to believe that people who present themselves as disciples of Christ when they believe complete lies about who He really is.

Albion said:

Lets clear this up. The term is used in the Bible and by religious leaders for both of those, but most often it is the Bible that is referred to as the word of God and Jesus Christ just as the Word.

Click to expand...

As I said, that is because of man. Christ is the Literal, Living Word of God.

That men chose to qualify Him further, and distinguish/attach His name to other things is a problem of man. The Word of God is Living, and cannot be contained in canonical text. He literally walked the earth, and can instruct anyone remotely - without a canonical text or even another human. That is the power of His Spirit, and His willingness to for anyone to come to repentance, and be refined to be as pure gold lacking nothing.

Kaon said:

As I said, that is because of man. Christ is the Literal, Living Word of God.

That men chose to qualify Him further, and distinguish/attach His name to other things is a problem of man. The Word of God is Living, and cannot be contained in canonical text. He literally walked the earth, and can instruct anyone remotely - without a canonical text or even another human. That is the power of His Spirit, and His willingness to for anyone to come to repentance, and be refined to be as pure gold lacking nothing.

Click to expand...

Glory to God! The truth has been spoken, and all who are wise ought to hear and accept this doctrine as irrefutable, not as if it came from a man (i.e. Kaon), but as if it came from the Holy Spirit, since this has always been what has been observed and taught throughout the ages.

That this is the truth can be clearly seen in the life of Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses--all of whom were righteous and God-pleasing men, being illumined and instructed by the Holy Spirit and their conscience on which the law of God is written (see Romans 1). Hence, it cannot be any clearer than this, that the greatness and infiniteness of God, cannot be contained by mere human words and understanding, nor can knowledge of Him be solely revealed through the Scriptures, since we have most clearly demonstrated that all of the Patriarchs which preceded any written scripture were righteous, living in a way that pleased God, and therefore received the crown of salvation.

Albion said:

Well, it is just a theory, you know.

Click to expand...

Well, according to some apparently. But either way its a very old theory, existing in one manner or another in both the eastern and western Church from as far back as we know.

Kaon said:

As I said, that is because of man. Christ is the Literal, Living Word of God.

That men chose to qualify Him further, and distinguish/attach His name to other things is a problem of man. The Word of God is Living, and cannot be contained in canonical text. He literally walked the earth, and can instruct anyone remotely - without a canonical text or even another human. That is the power of His Spirit, and His willingness to for anyone to come to repentance, and be refined to be as pure gold lacking nothing.

Click to expand...

You're angry at the Bible, then? I merely pointed out that the same terminology is commonly used for two different religious concepts, so it is a mistake to argue (as is often done here) that one or the other usage is misplaced.

fhansen said:

Well, according to some apparently. But either way its a very old theory, existing in one manner or another in both the eastern and western Church from as far back as we know.

Click to expand...

How far back is that? When was the first dogma create that had no Scriptural basis?

Albion said:

How far back is that? When was the first dogma create that had no Scriptural basis?

Click to expand...

It can have Scriptural basis as well. It just won't necessarily have Scripture-based certainty.

fhansen said:

It can have Scriptural basis as well. It just won't necessarily have Scripture-based certainty.

Click to expand...

I would still be interested in the answer to the question--including that proviso.

Albion said:

You're angry at the Bible, then? I merely pointed out that the same terminology is commonly used for two different religious concepts, so it is a mistake to argue (as is often done here) that one or the other usage is misplaced.

Click to expand...

I am not angry at the bible canon at all. I am (also) pointing out the terminology is misguided, at best, on a colloquial level. There is only One Word of God, and it isn't the bible canon. The bible canon certainly contains part of the words spoken by Christ and the prophets. But, the actual Word of God is what walked the earth, and the One that is One with the Most High God. It is what is written on the heart of believers as per the New Covenant, and it is the One that provides a Comforter in His stead so that we are not alone and without hope. The bible canon does not do this, but it certainly does have a large part in edification of the foundation the Holy Spirit sets up.

Men have qualified the Word of God as the word [of the canon.] They are not the same, and the former is the Living Authority on spiritual matters - not the latter.

Eloy Craft said in post #1619:

What did the Bereans receive? The Teaching of the Apostles from which the Apostolic Tradition and the written Tradition flow.

Click to expand...

Note that the Bereans checked even the apostle Paul's teaching against the Bible to see if what he was teaching was correct:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Here, of course, the scriptures were the Old Testament, on which the apostle Paul based his teachings:

Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

The apostle Paul taught everyone what the Old Testament had taught regarding the Messiah, the Christ (Acts 26:22-23), but which had not been understood by anyone (Luke 18:34, Romans 16:25-26) until Jesus Christ explained it to His apostles, after His resurrection (Luke 24:44-47, Galatians 1:12).

Christians can now know how perfectly the Old Testament foretold the suffering and death of Christ for our sins, and His rising physically from the dead on the third day (Acts 26:22-23; 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, Luke 24:44-47). His suffering and death for our sins was foretold in Isaiah 53 (cf. Acts 8:32-35; 1 Peter 2:24). His crucifixion experience was foretold in Psalms 22 (cf. Matthew 27:46,35). His not remaining dead was foretold in Psalms 16:10 (cf. Acts 2:31). His rising from the dead on the third day was foretold in Hosea 6:2 (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:4, Luke 24:46, Colossians 2:12). The fact that Christ's New Covenant Gospel (Matthew 26:28) would go forth to save both Jews and Gentiles was foretold in Isaiah 49:6 and Isaiah 42:6 (cf. Acts 26:23b, Luke 24:47). For some other examples of how Jesus Christ fulfilled Old Testament scriptures at His first coming: He fulfilled Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19 (cf. Acts 3:22-24, Luke 24:44), and Zechariah 9:9 (cf. Matthew 21:4-5), and Psalms 118:22 (cf. Acts 4:11), and Isaiah 9:1-2 (cf. Matthew 4:12-16), and Psalms 110:4 (cf. Hebrews 6:20).

Eloy Craft said in post #1619:

The Bereans didn't do that, they accepted the authority of Paul to teach what the scriptures mean. They did not practice Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

Note that the Bereans did practice sola scriptura because scripture was the ultimate authority against which even the apostle Paul's teaching had to be tested.

Sola scriptura does not negate human teaching per se (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:28). It simply means that no human teaching is necessarily true unless it is taught by the Bible itself:

Acts 17:11 . . . and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Albion said in post #1627:

It does not posit that every individual reader is to take whatever meaning from Scripture he thinks is there, let alone that all opinions are equally valid.

Click to expand...

That's right.

Also, it is sometimes asked: "But cannot anyone string verses together, and make the Bible say whatever they want?"

The answer is No, for while anyone can string verses together, they cannot make the Bible say whatever they want. For if they say something which contradicts what the Bible says when it is taken as a whole, then what they are saying is mistaken.

Even when what one verse says appears plain, it can still be misinterpreted, such as by reading into it things that it does not say, things which would contradict what other verses say. To arrive at correct doctrine, a verse in one place in the Bible must be compared with (qualified by) other, related verses elsewhere in the Bible (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). Our doctrine must be based on what the entire Bible says (2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 4:4), and not just on what some unqualified verses say.

An example of an unqualified verse would be John 3:36. We cannot say that it means that all we have to believe is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. For John 3:36 must be qualified by, for example, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (and vice versa). We have to believe both that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the third day. So when John 3:36 is qualified, something is added to it, not subtracted from it. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 adds further belief requirements to John 3:36 (and vice versa). 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 does not contradict the belief requirement of John 3:36 (or vice versa).

Another way that John 3:36 must be qualified is we cannot say that it means that all that Christians have to do is believe for at least one moment during their lifetime. For John 3:36 must be qualified by other verses which show that Christians will obtain ultimate salvation only if they continue to believe to the end (Hebrews 3:6,14, Colossians 1:23). And this is just one of the conditions which the Bible as a whole shows must be met in order for Christians to obtain ultimate salvation (e.g. Romans 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 9:27).

fhansen said in post #1652:

It can have Scriptural basis as well. It just won't necessarily have Scripture-based certainty.

Click to expand...

Note, for example, that if JWs become convinced to believe the truth of the Trinity, it will be through the Bible that they will be miraculously convinced (cf. Romans 10:17, Isaiah 55:11), by God's Holy Spirit wielding the scriptures within them (Ephesians 6:17b, Hebrews 4:12). It will not be through any mortal-human wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:11b-16), or any idea of a purportedly infallible Church, which in fact consists of fallible people (e.g. Matthew 16:23, Galatians 2:11-14, Luke 22:34), who can wrongly employ their free will to veer away from the truth of the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38). So if JW's do not believe the Bible itself teaching the Trinity, then they will not be convinced to believe in the Trinity no matter what anyone in the Church says (cf. Luke 16:31, John 5:47).

Bible2+ said:

Note that the Bereans checked even the apostle Paul's teaching against the Bible to see if what he was teaching was correct:

Click to expand...

The Apostle Paul was just another man to them. It was Paul's message that was tested.The Authority of the Apostles is a long accepted inheritance for us. Not so for the bereans. They were discovering the Authority of the Apostles. We have to be careful not to project our mindset into the the people of past times. We have to keep in mind the historical context and how they perceived the world differently than we do. One difference in their perception that prevents you from an accurate understanding of this account is that Sola Scriptura would be foreign to any Jew back then. The thought of not having teachers with authority over the meaning of what was written would not enter their minds. They needed to validate that Jesus really was the Messiah that was coming as Paul had pointed out in their sacred writings. They accepted that the scriptures Paul had showed them in fact did point to Jesus, thus proving who they formerly held as authorities of the written Law were wrong. An historical and balanced approach makes it obvious that Sola Scriptura was an unknown way of learning about truth from God.

Bible2+ said:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Click to expand...

The scriptures were used as a tool to argue by both sides in the synagogue. The Thessalonians were not as open to a different teaching from a different authority. Notice that searching the scriptures 'daily' to see if those things were true indicates that the Bereans were open to the teaching of Paul and Jesus as the Messiah. The Thessalonians didn't accept Paul's message so they didn't bother looking in the written Law. The focus isn't the authority of scriptures but the authority of Paul's message. They didn't have an interpretation that they had agreed on to see if it was wrong or not. That would be unthinkable to the common Jew back then. They were making sure the Pharisees were wrong.

The same dynamic that happened in Jerusalem to Jesus is happening to Paul. The past as it happened to Jesus is echoing forward to Paul here. We have to be mindful not to project current conditions here backward to Paul there.

Bible2+ said:

Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the written Law being the sole religious authority but a claim of harmony. Like Jesus claimed. He wasn't here to abolish the Law. Same as Jesus claimed in the past. Not the claim that's made by protestants these days.

Bible2+ said:

The apostle Paul taught everyone what the Old Testament had taught regarding the Messiah, the Christ (Acts 26:22-23), but which had not been understood by anyone (Luke 18:34, Romans 16:25-26) until Jesus Christ explained it to His apostles, after His resurrection (Luke 24:44-47, Galatians 1:12).

Click to expand...

Amen!

Bible2+ said:

Christians can now know how perfectly the Old Testament foretold the suffering and death of Christ for our sins, and His rising physically from the dead on the third day (Acts 26:22-23; 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, Luke 24:44-47). His suffering and death for our sins was foretold in Isaiah 53 (cf. Acts 8:32-35; 1 Peter 2:24). His crucifixion experience was foretold in Psalms 22 (cf. Matthew 27:46,35). His not remaining dead was foretold in Psalms 16:10 (cf. Acts 2:31). His rising from the dead on the third day was foretold in Hosea 6:2 (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:4, Luke 24:46, Colossians 2:12). The fact that Christ's New Covenant Gospel (Matthew 26:28) would go forth to save both Jews and Gentiles was foretold in Isaiah 49:6 and Isaiah 42:6 (cf. Acts 26:23b, Luke 24:47). For some other examples of how Jesus Christ fulfilled Old Testament scriptures at His first coming: He fulfilled Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19 (cf. Acts 3:22-24, Luke 24:44), and Zechariah 9:9 (cf. Matthew 21:4-5), and Psalms 118:22 (cf. Acts 4:11), and Isaiah 9:1-2 (cf. Matthew 4:12-16), and Psalms 110:4 (cf. Hebrews 6:20).

Click to expand...

Preachin' to the choir now brother!

Bible2+ said:

Note that the Bereans did practice sola scriptura because scripture was the ultimate authority against which even the apostle Paul's teaching had to be tested..

Sola scriptura does not negate human teaching per se (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:28). It simply means that no human teaching is necessarily true unless it is taught by the Bible itself:

Acts 17:11 . . . and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Click to expand...

A historically balanced view makes obvious that the idea of the written Law being a sole religious authority would have never crossed the Bereans minds. The OT scriptures are a testimony of a people who encountered God personally. The NT is a testimony of a community who God walked among and taught personally. The testimonies belong to those people and that community. Without them to authenticate the historical and spiritual meaning of scriptures, the scriptures become a story book myth about a lost people.

Bible2+ said:

So if JW's do not believe the Bible itself teaching the Trinity, then they will not be convinced to believe in the Trinity no matter what anyone in the Church says (cf. Luke 16:31, John 5:47).

Click to expand...

Say 1000 years ago or so, all the Christians disappeared from the earth and all was left were their bibles. You wouldn't be discussing the Trinity.

Bible2+ said:

Note, for example, that if JWs become convinced to believe the truth of the Trinity, it will be through the Bible that they will be miraculously convinced (cf. Romans 10:17, Isaiah 55:11), by God's Holy Spirit wielding the scriptures within them (Ephesians 6:17b, Hebrews 4:12). It will not be through any mortal-human wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:11b-16), or any idea of a purportedly infallible Church, which in fact consists of fallible people (e.g. Matthew 16:23, Galatians 2:11-14, Luke 22:34), who can wrongly employ their free will to veer away from the truth of the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1, Mark 8:35-38). So if JW's do not believe the Bible itself teaching the Trinity, then they will not be convinced to believe in the Trinity no matter what anyone in the Church says (cf. Luke 16:31, John 5:47).

Click to expand...

Well, you're getting close; you just have to put those ideas in proper order and perspective. Going by Scripture alone a person reading the bible on a desert isle, having had no contact with the Christian world, would not end up Trinitarian; he wouldn't even end up Christian by any concept of the term; he'd just put down the book and go grab another coconut with little care or understanding of that which he just read.

JWs offer plausible Scripture-based arguments against the deity of Jesus, so, yes, the Holy Spirit is necessary here, not Scripture alone. Here's how it plays out: The Church, from the beginning, was given possession of God's revelation, her people knowing-and together sorting out if necessary-the true faith, the authentic gospel. God the Holy Spirit has always been necessary in order to ensure the purity of that message, including those times when controversies arise. Humans are ignorant and limited regarding these matters, of course, on their own. People hear the message from the Church, regardless of whether or not they check it against Scripture (the Christian world was largely illiterate for most of its history BTW, while Scripture is nonetheless read at each Mass), and the Holy Spirit convicts them of the truth. They begin to agree with the Church as they gain understanding, as they personally grow in "the knowledge of God". And JWs have that opportunity, regarding the Trinity along with other teachings, as we all do.