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

Athanasius377 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mmmkay, you do realize, don't you, that not everything the Catholic Church teaches is dogma. Right? You understand that not everything is weighted equally, yes?

Take a look at the following chart:



As you can see, there is plenty of room for change, growth and correction. This is a big part of why the Magisterium is referred to as a living authority.

So when you say that the Cathechism Of The Catholic Church has changed, you're basically accusing the Catholic Church of having a functional and successful system.

Meanwhile, it sounds like your community's "catechism" is mired in the 16th century. "Living" authority? Doesn't seem like it.

thecolorsblend said:

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

Click to expand...

Rev.22:18(BSB) I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.…

Deuteronomy 4:2
You must not add to or subtract from what I command you, so that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I am giving you.

Deuteronomy 12:32
See that you do everything I command you; do not add to it or subtract from it.

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.




Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.(2Cor.5:17)

One Son said:

Rev.22:18(BSB) I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.…

Click to expand...

That's good advice. We should all make sure we never alter Sacred Scripture. But that doesn't say that Sacred Scripture is our only our only authority or sole rule of faith.

One Son said:

Deuteronomy 4:2
You must not add to or subtract from what I command you, so that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I am giving you.

Click to expand...

Seems like a variation on the above. Again, useful instructions. But that doesn't say that Sacred Scripture is our only our only authority or sole rule of faith.

One Son said:

Deuteronomy 12:32
See that you do everything I command you; do not add to it or subtract from it.

Click to expand...

Ibid. That's a useful commandment. But that doesn't say that Sacred Scripture is our only our only authority or sole rule of faith.

One Son said:

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Click to expand...

Golly, I'm picking up on a theme here. Still, that doesn't say that Sacred Scripture is our only our only authority or sole rule of faith.

One Son said:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.(2Cor.5:17)

Click to expand...

That doesn't say that Sacred Scripture is our only our only authority or sole rule of faith.

The wait goes on.

thecolorsblend said:

That doesn't say that Sacred Scripture is our only our only authority or sole rule of faith.

The wait goes on.

Click to expand...

There you go again. Once again, that is not our argument. Re-read the OP:
Sola Scriptura: Are the Scriptures Sufficient as a Rule of Faith?

Linked in the OP is the following statement

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. It is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. In John 21:25 we read that if everything that Jesus said or did had been recorded that the world itself would not be large enough to contain the books that would be written, but it does not have to be exhaustive, either, to be the rule of faith for the Church. We don’t need to know the color of Matthew’s eyes. We don’t need to know the menu of each of the apostolic meals of the Lord Jesus by the Sea of Galilee to have a sufficient rule of faith for the Church. Curiosity that goes beyond what God has revealed is not godly.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach. I Timothy 3:15 describes the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. And what is the truth? The truth, of course, is Jesus Christ. And how do we know Jesus Christ? We know Jesus Christ from his Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to believe in the truth, calls men to believe in Jesus Christ. But the Church does not add revelation or rule over the Scriptures. The Church, being the Bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in the God-breathed Scriptures.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word was, at one time, spoken. Apostolic teaching was authoritative in and of itself, yet the Apostles proved their message from Scripture. You’ll note, for example, Paul’s example, in Acts 17:2 or Apollos in Acts 18:28 demonstrating the consistency that existed between the message that they preached and the Old Testament Scriptures. And remember, also, that John commended those in Ephesus in Revelation 2:2 for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, and how would they have done that, if not by the Scriptures?

And finally, number four, it is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church. It is in no way a denial that the Holy Spirit is absolutely, positively necessary for anyone to have a full understanding of the Scriptures because they need to be spiritually discerned.


And the wait goes on for you to accurately represent our argument. Which I have noted you have been corrected three times in this thread.

I was doing a bit of research on how sola Scriptura is understood and found this from Donald Bloesch:


Quoted from: A Theology of Word and Spirit.

pescador said:

Do you even know what sola scriptura means? Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority. It has nothing to do with works.

Click to expand...

So you read and hear the word of God, but do not practice it?

Albion said:

Huh?

Click to expand...

Whenever there is an objection about Sola Scriptura, someone arrives on the scene with an "official definition" but this is strawman bait, since the way Sola Scriptura actually plays out - is totally different.

How sola scripturists treat others is a big factor in how sola scriptura is percieved.

A similar idea like this is when there is a thread where people are disagreeing against "reformist" christianity, and a reformist person arrives on the scene offering a statement of faith as strawman bait, but will not discuss conduct - skillfully utilizing the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Sola Scriptura is kind of the same way.

A similar idea is the idea of theosis in the bible, gets pretty sticky, but there's different dialogue depending on who is discussing it with whom.

Albion said:

I suppose so, but no one said that the Scriptures aren't to be applied. If anything, Sola Scriptura is an appeal TO apply Scripture (as opposed to applying less authoritative sources of information to doctrinal issues).



Why not?

Click to expand...

Because the book cannot grow feet and arms and actually demonstrate what is written.

Radagast said:

Huh?

That made zero sense. Try this:

We believe
that this Holy Scripture contains
the will of God completely
and that everything one must believe
to be saved
is sufficiently taught in it.

For since the entire manner of service
which God requires of us
is described in it at great length,
no one —
even an apostle
or an angel from heaven,
as Paul says (Galatians 1:8) —
ought to teach other than
what the Holy Scriptures have
already taught us.

For since it is forbidden
to add to the Word of God,
or take anything away from it (Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19),
it is plainly demonstrated
that the teaching is perfect
and complete in all respects.

Therefore we must not consider human writings —
no matter how holy their authors may have been —
equal to the divine writings;
nor may we put custom,
nor the majority,
nor age,
nor the passage of times or persons,
nor councils, decrees, or official decisions
above the truth of God,
for truth is above everything else.

For all human beings are liars by nature
and more vain than vanity itself.

Therefore we reject with all our hearts
everything that does not agree
with this infallible rule,
as we are taught to do by the apostles
when they say,
“Test the spirits
to see whether they are from God,” (1 John 4:1)
and also,
“Do not receive into the house
or welcome anyone
who comes to you
and does not bring this teaching.” (2 John 1:10)

Click to expand...

Therefore, you reject everything that does not agree with your interpretation of the scriptures.

This is getting to the heart of the matter.

Michael Collum said:

Whenever there is an objection about Sola Scriptura, someone arrives on the scene with an "official definition" but this is strawman bait, since the way Sola Scriptura actually plays out - is totally different.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is what it is. And it does not change because someone sticks that wording on something else that is unrelated to Sola Scriptura.

It also is not the fault of Sola Scriptura or the many people who have explained, again and again and again, what it means...and then read the next reply from the online critics who pretend not to be able to understand such a straightforward concept.

Albion said:

Nonsense. It is what it is. And it does not change because someone sticks that wording on something else that is unrelated to Sola Scriptura.

It also is not the fault of Sola Scriptura or the many people who have explained, again and again and again, what it means, only then to read the next reply from the online questioners who pretend not to understand such a straightforward concept.

Click to expand...

It's not straightforward.

Read the bible, and it will not be long before you encounter invitations to seek Godly wisdom outside the bible, through nature, through the Holy Spirit, etc.

Michael Collum said:

It's not straightforward.

Click to expand...

How can "There is no spiritual authority that's the equal of God's own word" be anything but straightforward? And understandable.

Albion said:

What a cute reply. Now, is there a

How can "There is no spiritual authority that's the equal of God's own word" be anything but straightforward? And understandable.

Click to expand...

Not straightforward. It tends to translate in application that there is no spiritual authority that's equal to said person's bible interpretation.

Michael Collum said:

Not straightforward. It tends to translate in application that there is no spiritual authority that's equal to said person's bible interpretation.

Click to expand...

If someone has not translated the meaning correctly, explain to us all how that fact makes Sola Scriptura be different from what the term means.

Does everyone who gets ANY part of Holy Scripture wrong -- and I hope we can agree that there are many such -- thereby render Scripture useless or untrue? How ridiculous is that?.

And do let us know what is not understandable about "Nothing is the equal of God's word?"

Tradidi said:

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)

Click to expand...

Why after 370 posts after a definition you have do I all of the sudden have to give another definition of SS? You started the thread with an adequate definition of SS. Not even my preferred definition but an adequate definition. That is the definition I am working from. Was it not the definition you offered? The problem isn’t me defining my position it’s you that has a monumental task of working within that framework to prove the Roman position. Perhaps you ceded too much of the argument to begin. That’s why you are trying to move the goalposts 370 posts in.

you mean prove SS according to your understanding of Aristotelian categories? I was actually expecting you to try. You’ve clearly have not read the Lutheran scholastics which makes sense. Think Martin Chemnitz. Keep in mind Dr white is reformed and I’m Lutheran so we will answer differently. But again I wasn’t asked to do so. So there’s that.

Albion said:

If someone has not translated the meaning correctly, explain to us all how that fact makes Sola Scriptura be different from what the term means.

Does everyone who gets ANY part of Holy Scripture wrong -- and I hope we can agree that there are many such -- thereby render Scripture useless or untrue? How ridiculous is that?.

And do let us know what is not understandable about "Nothing is the equal of God's word?"

Click to expand...

I think you're proving my earlier point. From strawman to strawman, thou art Sola Scriptura.

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

Click to expand...

Tradidi said:

It is the argument of Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

There seems to be conflicting ideas of what Sola Scripture means. I suppose I will need to do some research before I can comment further. Or perhaps one discussion should set a base of the meaning for the discussion.

CaspianSails said:

There seems to be conflicting ideas of what Sola Scripture means.

Click to expand...

There is only a conflict between those who understand what it means and those who do not.

The easiest way for someone who is new to the subject and cannot decide what he term means would be to check with a church that believes in Sola Scriptura. A Lutheran church, for example.

If the topic was the Pope, most people would think to consult the Roman Catholic Church in order to find out what that church leader's position is all about, wouldn't it?