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

redleghunter · Jul 13, 2020

Radagast said:
What Apostolic "NT Written Tradition" do you think got left out of "NT Scripture"?

Yeah, I've been asking that same question for years. Still no answer.

redleghunter · Jul 13, 2020

dms1972 said:
I agree there is a misunderstanding in this thread of what Sola Scriptura means.

Here is a helpful article on it:

The Real Meaning of Sola Scriptura - The Gospel Coalition | Australia

This is good as well. But 'they' never read it.

Understanding Sola Scriptura

Pertinent excerpt:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

Athanasius377 · Jul 13, 2020

redleghunter said:
This is good as well. But 'they' never read it.

Understanding Sola Scriptura

Pertinent excerpt:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

Agreed. This is what we have been saying for every thread on the subject ad nauseam. In every case the thread starts out fine with a solid definition then someone comes along and twists what we are saying to burn down there strawman. There are two other threads going on about SS and what do you think the chances are the RCC opponents are rightly representing this definition?

Tradidi · Jul 13, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
That is history friend. And it was what I quoted to colorsblend some 50 posts ago because there were other rules of faith. Yet here we go again by trying to shoehorn some amorphous tradition that no one can point to as opposed to apostolic tradition which was recorded for us. That tradition is called the NT.

In case you missed it:

As the second century advances, we come across more detailed citations of ‘the rule of faith’, i.e. the teaching inherited from the apostles and set out in freely worded summaries. Sometimes these are cast in a dyadic mould and refer to the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but the triadic pattern, affirming belief in the Father Who created the universe, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, gradually becomes normal. An illustration may be quoted from a treatise5 of Irenaeus’s which gives a very fair picture of intelligent catechetical instruction at this period:

This, then, is the order of the rule of our faith.… God the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith. The second point is this: the Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, Who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the Father’s dispensation; through Whom (i.e. the Word) all things were made; Who also, at the end of the age, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce perfect reconciliation between God and man. And the third point is: the Holy Spirit, through Whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led into the way of righteousness; Who at the end of the age was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man to God.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, pp. 88–89). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

Remember Sola Scriptura? Show me where the Bible says that Oral Tradition came to an end?

Tradidi · Jul 13, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
Once again. We are not saying there was not a time when scripture existed in oral form. So yes, the first century christian was fully equipped.

Thank you. If the fist century Christians were fully equipped, where does the Bible teach us that part of their equipment would be made obsolete and replaced some 350+ years later by something else? This is your THEORY, great, beautiful, but theories are not evidence. Unless you can prove this from the Scriptures I do not need to believe it according to Sola Scriptura.

You are welcome to give me more theories, they're all beautiful, but they go in one ear and out the other, because they are just theories. I am after proof, evidence that your theory is also God's theory, and not just another tradition... I mean theory of men.

Tradidi · Jul 13, 2020

Hawkins said:
Sola Scriptura is rather the denial of the RCC authority in the same way as how the Jewish authority is denied by Christians. If a human authority went corrupt and can no longer be the earthly representative of God, this authority will be replaced.

The proof is that,
OT is the testimony of the Jews. Its canonization thus belongs to the Jews. The Jews went through King Hezekiah, Ezra and etc. to have the OT Bible canonized and well guarded by the Pharisees till AD 70. It is the Jews' testimonies and legitimately canonized by the Jews. The Jews thus have a correct OT Canon

NT is the testimony of the Apostles. It's legitimately canonized by Christians after human authority being transferred from the Jews to Christians. Christians thus have a correct NT Canon.

Today, only the Protestants can have both a correct OT and NT Canon.

Jesus did not deny the authority of the Scribes and Pharizees. He condemned their actions. I think you're onto a dead end road here.

Tradidi · Jul 13, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
Agreed. This is what we have been saying for every thread on the subject ad nauseam. In every case the thread starts out fine with a solid definition then someone comes along and twists what we are saying to burn down there strawman. There are two other threads going on about SS and what do you think the chances are the RCC opponents are rightly representing this definition?

I never saw you offer a definition. I must have missed it. Please state it here once and for all.

Failing that, I thought I go to the most "learned" and famous of all current day Protestant apologists and use his definition. If that definition is wrong, and if we need to have a long debate first about what Sola Scriptura is and is not, then maybe, just maybe that Rule of Faith is like the relativity theory of Einstein: fun for academics, but utterly useless for everyone else.

To spell it out: if your Rule of Faith is so hard to define and understand, it cannot be a Rule of Faith. Period.

And this is another discussion I have up my sleeve: what does Scripture say are the necessary attributes of a Rule of Faith? You may start thinking about that one. Yes, the Bible does tell us precisely how we can recognise the Rule of Faith. Do you know where? (rhetorical question, no answer needed in this thread)

pescador · Jul 13, 2020

Tradidi said:
Thank you. If the fist century Christians were fully equipped, where does the Bible teach us that part of their equipment would be made obsolete and replaced some 350+ years later by something else? This is your THEORY, great, beautiful, but theories are not evidence. Unless you can prove this from the Scriptures I do not need to believe it according to Sola Scriptura.

You are welcome to give me more theories, they're all beautiful, but they go in one ear and out the other, because they are just theories. I am after proof, evidence that your theory is also God's theory, and not just another tradition... I mean theory of men.

Your post is confusing.

You wrote, "If the fist century Christians were fully equipped, where does the Bible teach us that part of their equipment would be made obsolete and replaced some 350+ years later by something else?" Where does the Bible teach us that the church would become a huge corporate identity based on the model of the Roman empire? Where does the Bible teach that there would be a single man (the Pope) who would be infallible? (Even though Popes throughout history would disagree with each other.)

Where does the New Testament teach us that there would be a priesthood, modeled after the Old Testament priesthood, that would be a separate class of people from the rest of the Body of Christ?

Where does the Bible teach us that there would be a whole panoply of "saints" that people would pray to instead of praying to God directly?

No man, from the Pope to the rest of us, is infallible. The Catholic church has, throughout history, has made many grievous errors and created a huge bureaucracy that includes quite a few men who have committed grievous sins against God and people.

No man except Christ is flawless.

The only infallible truth is the Bible! The Word of God is without error and can be totally relied upon to teach, guide and comfort people of faith.

Sola scriptura

redleghunter · Jul 13, 2020

Tradidi said:
Remember Sola Scriptura? Show me where the Bible says that Oral Tradition came to an end?

Show us it was the norm for the Hebrews.

thecolorsblend · Jul 13, 2020

redleghunter · Jul 13, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
And don't discount the use of the many Scriptorium in the ancient world.

Indeed:

2 Timothy 4:

13When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.

Tradidi · Jul 13, 2020

pescador said:
Your post is confusing.

You wrote, "If the fist century Christians were fully equipped, where does the Bible teach us that part of their equipment would be made obsolete and replaced some 350+ years later by something else?" Where does the Bible teach us that the church would become a huge corporate identity based on the model of the Roman empire? Where does the Bible teach that there would be a single man (the Pope) who would be infallible? (Even though Popes throughout history would disagree with each other.)

Where does the New Testament teach us that there would be a priesthood, modeled after the Old Testament priesthood, that would be a separate class of people from the rest of the Body of Christ?

Where does the Bible teach us that there would be a whole panoply of "saints" that people would pray to instead of praying to God directly?

No man, from the Pope to the rest of us, is infallible. The Catholic church has, throughout history, has made many grievous errors and created a huge bureaucracy that includes quite a few men who have committed grievous sins against God and people.

No man except Christ is flawless.

The only infallible truth is the Bible! The Word of God is without error and can be totally relied upon to teach, guide and comfort people of faith.

Sola scriptura

Shifting the burden of proof. Dismissed.

thecolorsblend · Jul 13, 2020

pescador said:
Sola scriptura

Still waiting on the scripture that directly and explicitly affirms "sola scriptura", btw.

CaspianSails · Jul 13, 2020

thecolorsblend said:
View attachment 280729

So is this the crux of the argument against Sola Scripture, I am smarter then they were or I have an insight they did not have.

Tradidi · Jul 13, 2020

CaspianSails said:
So is this the crux of the argument against Sola Scripture, I am smarter then they were or I have an insight they did not have.

It is the argument of Sola Scriptura.

redleghunter · Jul 13, 2020

thecolorsblend said:
Still waiting on the scripture that directly and explicitly affirms "sola scriptura", btw.

The New Testament.

Here's a sample. You have seen this previously and often.

Luke 24: NASB

25And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26“Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures....

44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48“You are witnesses of these things. 49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

pescador · Jul 13, 2020

Tradidi said:
Shifting the burden of proof. Dismissed.

By whom? Mary? St. Roch (patron saint of dogs)?

Since you are unable to counter my post it stands as written. QED

pescador · Jul 13, 2020

redleghunter said:
The New Testament.

Here's a sample. You have seen this previously and often.

Luke 24: NASB

25And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26“Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures....

44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48“You are witnesses of these things. 49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

5 stars!!
A+
QED

Athanasius377 · Jul 13, 2020

Tradidi said:
Remember Sola Scriptura? Show me where the Bible says that Oral Tradition came to an end?

I don't have to. The thread was to prove that SS was sufficient as a rule of faith. Which I did.

Athanasius377 · Jul 13, 2020

Tradidi said:
It's always a good sign to see your opponent in a debate flee to the safety of diversion tactics.

Although it is not very suggestive of the honesty of said opponent.

Actually the point is the SS as a rule of faith can produce continuity that your tradition plus magisterium plus scripture cannot produce. I have a copy of the CCC that I purchased in 2003 that is already obsolete yet my Lutheran catechism dates From 1529 and has not changed. Want to know why? Because God's word doesn't change. Your tradition does and has in my lifetime.

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

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Wise old man

Thank You Jesus!

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Thank You Jesus!

Active Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

Wise old man

Wise old man

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Similar threads