Sola Scriptura: Are the Scriptures Sufficient as a Rule of Faith?

Philip_B said:

The Revelation of St John The Divine.

To extend the meaning to the canon of the New Testament, or to the canon of the Old Testament, or both, would be a difficult argument to make.

You can not assume that the author thought he was writing something to be encapsulated in a collection of writings.

Click to expand...

Fair comment, I was interested in what folks thought.

ewq1938 said:

Sola Scriptura in the bible:

Act 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...

at the time period Acts was written, what was considered scripture? The Tanakh was considered scripture. This passage cannot apply to the Bible as you know it.

Dave L said:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (NCPB)

Click to expand...

First, this passage doesnt say "Only' Scripture. I think we could all agree with St Paul's words, just dont add the word "Only".

Second, see my post above about the Tanakh.

concretecamper said:

First, this passage doesnt say "Only' Scripture. I think we could all agree with St Paul's words, just dont add the word "Only".

Second, see my post above about the Tanakh.

Click to expand...

The Prophets (now ended), spoke God's NT words later compiled into scripture.

Dave L said:

The Prophets (now ended), spoke God's NT words later compiled into scripture.

Click to expand...

ok, but Paul was referring to the Tanakh. If you want to his letter to Timothy as proof of SS, you must limit scripture to what Paul was referring to.

concretecamper said:

ok, but Paul was referring to the Tanakh. If you want to his letter to Timothy as proof of SS, you must limit scripture to what Paul was referring to.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. All that he said became scripture when written.

Tradidi said:

Claim: "The Scriptures are sufficient to function as a Rule of Faith."

Challenge: Prove it!

Click to expand...

I can't think of any necessary message which is other or better than all I have found in God's word. But there are things which words alone can not tell us, which we need to find out how to do, with God. So, this would be how I personally understand sola scriptura. But I get the impression that there are people saying "yay sola scriptura" but they need to find out much more of what the Scriptures are saying and what they really mean. Their attention can be "sola how I understand and represent scriptura", but their attention is limited and isolated to what is much less than God's word is talking about.

If I may > below, I am not trying to directly prove or disprove anyone's beliefs, but I would like to offer a few things >

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

And these Scriptures say we need >

"faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6)

So, I see how we need God's love to have us living all He knows His word means. Correct words alone do not . . . can not . . . tell us all God means by each scripture. Every scripture can somehow help us to love the way God's word means, since all His word comes from His love for Jesus and us. But we need how God's love has us actually discovering all His word means. The scriptures help, but God proves Himself.

So, I would say we need the correct words and how God demonstrates in us and our lives His interpretation which is deeper than words and better than we can understand unless He actually demonstrates (1 Corinthians 2:4).

And we ourselves are His living message >

"you are an epistle of Christ" > in 2 Corinthians 3:1-3.

So, God's word is not only written in the Scriptures, but in our hearts. People need to read us > "known and read by all men" > 2 Corinthians 2:1-3. And our Apostle Peter even says how wives "without a word" can win disobedient husbands > 1 Peter 3:1-4.

Each of us, then, has ability with God to minister His own grace so we grow in Jesus and how Jesus in us has us loving >

"Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers." (Ephesians 4:29)

"speaking the truth in love" that we "may grow up in all things into Him who is the Head, that is---Christ---" (in Ephesians 4:15)

So . . . scripture is not enough > it needs to be ministered "in love". And the love ministering is spreading God's own things which change us to be and to love like Jesus who is God's Word.

So, scripture is not only for getting correct ideas, but God's word is for ministering His own grace which changes us to become and to love like Jesus while submitting to how our Father rules us and personally guides us in His own peace > Colossians 3:15.

And you might consider how a number of letters in the Bible start with blessing us with "grace" and "peace" > for example Ephesians 1:2. We need how God's grace and peace have us correctly understand His word, and how grace and peace share with us all the good which His words are talking about . . . demonstrating.

And so we need "examples" who are samples who can spread to us how God's grace and peace is blessing them >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

We need leaders who are samples of all God means by His word > how we are becoming conformed to the image of Jesus who is the Word.

It was not enough to have God's word, then, I now consider. I see how ones can be fabricating word idols, and saying they are sola scriptura, but their doctrinal word idols are not resulting in people being and loving like Jesus. Instead, God uses people to minister the grace and peace which His words mean.

The people needed the Apostles who were examples, for example >

"we were gentle among you, even as a nursing mother who cherishes her own children" (in 1 Thessalonians 2:7).

Here I think we can see how the message was not enough. They needed how the Apostles personally related with them, so they could get the love meaning of God's word. They so personally . . . tenderly . . . shared with God's ministers.

But now it seems we have people who can be so distant, only handing out doctrines and arguments, and not able to personally and tenderly share with ones they are reaching to. In order to love intimately and tenderly > "without complaining and disputing" (Philippians 2:13-16) > we need to become deeply stable and strong in God's way of loving, so things can't get the better of us and get us bitter and fighting and biting.

thecolorsblend said:

The relevant issue is they accepted oral teaching.

The Bereans did not practice "sola scriptura". Because it's a man-made doctrine and they were of a more noble character.

Click to expand...

They literally checked oral teaching against the light of scripture to make sure what they were being taught orally was accurate. They were wise not to simply accept what Paul told them, they searched the scriptures to make sure what he said was true.

thecolorsblend said:

They accepted doctrine given to them orally and then they ensured that it aligned with Sacred Scripture.

Click to expand...

--because hearsay was not adequate, they turned to the word of God which was the final authority.

If you want to see something akin to "sola scriptura", go back a passage or two when the Jews of Thessalonica ran St. Paul out on a rail. That was "sola scriptura" in action.

Click to expand...

How so?

Dave L said:

Not necessarily. All that he said became scripture when written.

Click to expand...

Yes necessarily. You are adding to Paul's words.

So to use Paul's letter to Timothy as proof for SS, we need to:
1. Add the word "Only"
2. Make the leap Paul to speaking about the future.

Ok then....

concretecamper said:

Yes necessarily. You are adding to Paul's words.

So to use Paul's letter to Timothy as proof for SS, we need to:
1. Add the word "Only"
2. Make the leap Paul to speaking about the future.

Ok then....

Click to expand...

Just stick to scripture and ignore those who don't.

I fear that we're going to have eighty posts here in which nothing is accomplished. The one side, in support of Sola Scriptura, will say there is obviously nothing that's the equal of God's word...and the other, being unwilling to contest that point, will insist upon redefining Sola Scriptura in order to have the term mean something of their own choosing.

Albion said:

I fear that we're going to have eighty posts here in which nothing is accomplished.

Click to expand...

it is becasue you cannot defend SS with Scripture. All that can be done is to prove Scripture is profitable. no one can disagree with that.

concretecamper said:

it is becasue you cannot defend SS with Scripture.

Click to expand...

Well, no, it cannot be that since it's been defended with Scripture already. There are all manner of verses that testify to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture.

But having read that standard complaint against Sola Scriptura many times over, what I would like to hear from an opponent is some explanation about how the word of God himself is not to be trusted.

Albion said:

Well, no, it cannot be that since it's been defended with Scripture already.

Click to expand...

no it hasn't. But you are free to take a shot at it.

Albion said:

But having read that standard complaint against Sola Scriptura many times over, what I would like to hear from an opponent is some explanation about how the word of God himself is not to be trusted.

Click to expand...

we all trust the Word of God.

Now is the time where it would be nice to hear an argument that supports SS.

concretecamper said:

we all trust the Word of God.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you don't. Your church certainly says that the Bible is divinely inspired, just as the Bible itself testifies.

But if all this is correct to say, how can Scripture not be treated as if it were, in fact, the final word on essential doctrine--since, that is, nothing can be more authoritative than what God himself has revealed to mankind?? Or complete or adequate for his purposes.

Albion said:

But if all this is correct to say, how can Scripture not be treated as if it were, in fact, the final word on essential doctrine--since, that is, nothing can be more authoritative than what God himself has revealed to mankind?? Or complete or adequate for his purposes.

Click to expand...

still waiting on the scripture that defends this view.

concretecamper said:

still waiting on the scripture that defends this view.

Click to expand...

I was asked this--

Now is the time where it would be nice to hear an argument that supports SS.

Click to expand...

In reply, I gave such an argument (post #40, which was quoted in the previous post).

While verses that speak of the value of the word of God are all over the Bible and have been cited before, taking up my reply in post #40 would be to deal with an even more fundamental reason for trusting Scripture.

It deserves to be answered IMO. That's if this thread is not to be just one more exercise in the trading of Bible verses with no resolution of anything. And of course it is also a direct answer to the request that was made of me for "an argument that supports SS."

The Bereans have long been seen as a positive example of how a person or community should respond to biblical teaching. We are called to eagerly learn from God’s Word and, no matter who the teacher is, to investigate new teaching in comparison with the Bible. The practice of the ancient Bereans is a model for all who desire to grow spiritually today.

2 Timothy 3:16

Berean Literal Bible
Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

All Scripture is God-breathed (not teachers)