definition of sola scriptura

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's the definition I came across and it sounds about right:
A Latin term meaning "scripture alone." It is one of several Protestant beliefs to come out of the reformation. This Protestant doctrine says that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear. It is this last point that is disputed by the Roman Catholic Church, which holds that while the Bible contains all truth necessary for salvation, its meaning is not clear and must be interpreted by an infallible teaching authority, the magisterium of the Church.
 
Upvote 0

TCapp

Senior Veteran
Jun 24, 2003
2,563
82
✟10,636.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Others
Sorry about copy and paste. Here's the link http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html for the full text.

***

The term "sola Scriptura" or "the Bible alone" is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Scripture states this concept repeatedly and emphatically. The very phrase "It is written" means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" -Revelation 22:18-19

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself. (Psalm 119:160)

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), He was speaking of God's written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God's declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.
Thus there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord's people in the Church.

Affirmed by Jesus Christ

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great high priestly prayer, He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, "thy law is truth." There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer's standard of truth.

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, "It is written" as for example, in Matthew 4:4, "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." In stating "It is written," the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord's total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."

Other sources of authority condemned

People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God's Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus' day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God--corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God's Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 "You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye." Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6:

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord's strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The truth is this: since God's written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

How is Scripture to be accurately interpreted?

The principle of "sola Scriptura" is basic to accurate interpretation of Scripture. Psalm 36:9 explains, "For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light." God's truth is seen in the light of God's truth. The Apostle Paul said the same thing, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God's truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7).

The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God's written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.

Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit's light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord's to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth "it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth" (I John 5:6).

If you want to be true to God in this important matter, follow His instruction, "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you" (Proverbs 1:23). If you are yearning for truth in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 "with a broken and a contrite heart", the Lord God will not despise you. He will reveal to the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles.
 
Upvote 0

Bastoune

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2003
1,283
47
50
New York, NY, USA
✟1,694.00
Faith
Catholic
It does only mean the Book of Revelation. The Bible itself wasn't even canonized (let alone completely compiled!) when Revelation was written!

Talk about need of an infallible teacher if you can't understand the context in which that verse was written! Incidentally, unless you speak Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and know exactly which books should be in the Bible and which excluded, and various cultural references, you are relying on someone else's authority in how to approach the Bible!

Did Martin Luther have the authority, or right to change, add, or omit passages in the Bible? But he did!!!

He added the word "ALONE" to his German translation of the Bible to Romans 3:28.

What's more, he eliminated the deuterocanonical books from the OT since they did not agree with his theology. (In AD 90, the Jews removed them from their canon since these books supported too much Christian theology; but the Jews in AD 90 were not the Church led by the Holy Spirit so they had no authority to tell Christians or anyone what is/was inspired). That is why he wanted to throw out Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. But his cohorts convinced him otherwise.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM

Just some food for thought when you think about the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

I can eat 50 eggs

what we have here is a failure to communicate
Oct 3, 2002
1,127
17
48
Hampstead, Maryland
Visit site
✟16,632.00
Faith
Christian
Reformationist said:
I agree with the proviso that, at least from a Protestant perspective, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

God bless

if the collection is fallible, then you cannot believe in sola scriptura.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I can eat 50 eggs said:
if the collection is fallible, then you cannot believe in sola scriptura.

Well there's a big theological leap... :rolleyes:

Just because I said the collection is fallible doesn't mean that the books themselves are fallible. On the contrary, the books of the Bible are infallible because they are the words of God. However, the Bible was compiled by fallible beings so the compilation was a fallible process.

There is something you should take note of. I said the collection was "fallible," not errant. Just because it could be wrong doesn't mean that it is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

I can eat 50 eggs

what we have here is a failure to communicate
Oct 3, 2002
1,127
17
48
Hampstead, Maryland
Visit site
✟16,632.00
Faith
Christian
not a leap at all.

First, if you agree that the collection is fallible, then there could be some other work that SHOULD have been included that's not. There could be more of God's revelation out there that wasn't included.

not to mention that if the collection is fallible, then that calls into equal question what is in the Bible itself.

the fact that it COULD be wrong destroys the argument just as much as if something was known to be wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I can eat 50 eggs said:
First, if you agree that the collection is fallible, then there could be some other work that SHOULD have been included that's not. There could be more of God's revelation out there that wasn't included.

Yes. That is a possibility to consider.

not to mention that if the collection is fallible, then that calls into equal question what is in the Bible itself.

Absolutely not. To say, as the Catholics do, that the Bible is an infallible compilation of infallible books does not call into question what is in the Bible. Additionally, to say that everything that is in the Bible is infallible, which is what Protestants say, but because the Bible was compiled by fallible beings then there could be something that should have been in it that isn't included, does not call into question that which is in it.

the fact that it COULD be wrong destroys the argument just as much as if something was known to be wrong.

This may help (or it may not):

Infallible - incapable of error
Inerrent - Contains no error

You see, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are completely infallible. Of that there is no disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. The most that I could say is that I don't believe there to be an error in the compilation of the Protestant Bible. To ascribe infallibility to the compilation of that Bible is more than I feel compelled to believe.

So, to clear up (in case you are confused), there is no error to be found in the Bible, nor can there be error. The books of the Bible are infallible, and obviously, inerrant. I believe the compilation of the Protestant Bible to be fallible, though inerrant.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
22
✟13,840.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I believe the compilation of the Protestant Bible to be fallible, though inerrant.

Does anyone who believe in the Bible Codes and understnds what it's about know if the 66 books of the Bible are encoded in the Torah? -- proving the compilation (66 books chosen) to be divinely inspired as well? Has anyone done a search for the names of the 66 books? It wld be interesting to note.
 
Upvote 0

Bastoune

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2003
1,283
47
50
New York, NY, USA
✟1,694.00
Faith
Catholic
I can eat 50 eggs said:
not a leap at all.

First, if you agree that the collection is fallible, then there could be some other work that SHOULD have been included that's not. There could be more of God's revelation out there that wasn't included.

not to mention that if the collection is fallible, then that calls into equal question what is in the Bible itself.

the fact that it COULD be wrong destroys the argument just as much as if something was known to be wrong.


Like Paul's letter to the Laodiceans?

"After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea." [/COLOR] (Col. 4:16)

Now here in the infallible Scripture, we see Paul commanding the Colossians to read the letter to the Laodiceans!!! So it's content must have some important message, otherwise Paul wouldn't want them to read it... and in infallible Scripture, we have a command to read it. But that letter doesn't exist anymore; it's lost.

Also, Peter upholds the authority of also understanding Scripture based on the oral teachings received from the Apostles:

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction .

"Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."
(2 Peter 3:15-17)

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions[Greek word is "paradosis"] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 3:15)

Infallible texts are not always infallibly interpreted! They need an infallible teacher!

Not trying to start a debate, just food for thought.
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,465
733
Western NY
✟78,744.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Reformationist said:
Yes. That is a possibility to consider.



Absolutely not. To say, as the Catholics do, that the Bible is an infallible compilation of infallible books does not call into question what is in the Bible. Additionally, to say that everything that is in the Bible is infallible, which is what Protestants say, but because the Bible was compiled by fallible beings then there could be something that should have been in it that isn't included, does not call into question that which is in it.



This may help (or it may not):

Infallible - incapable of error
Inerrent - Contains no error

You see, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are completely infallible. Of that there is no disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. The most that I could say is that I don't believe there to be an error in the compilation of the Protestant Bible. To ascribe infallibility to the compilation of that Bible is more than I feel compelled to believe.

So, to clear up (in case you are confused), there is no error to be found in the Bible, nor can there be error. The books of the Bible are infallible, and obviously, inerrant. I believe the compilation of the Protestant Bible to be fallible, though inerrant.

God bless


I hesitate at the word infallible , I prefer inerrant . There are some transcription errors (numbers usually) and some passages that vary some in expression.

But the Scriptures are inerrant in the presentation of all we need to know about God and Salvation and on which to form doctrine .

I like your observation that they were compiled by fallible beings (thus the transcription errors) But the declaration of the books as the writing was under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit .
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
rnmomof7 said:
I hesitate at the word infallible , I prefer inerrant . There are some transcription errors (numbers usually) and some passages that vary some in expression.

But the Scriptures are inerrant in the presentation of all we need to know about God and Salvation and on which to form doctrine .

I like your observation that they were compiled by fallible beings (thus the transcription errors) But the declaration of the books as the writing was under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit .

Hey there. :wave:

Let me point out one thing that you reminded me of that I failed to include in my previous post. When I said that the books of the Bible are infallible I am referring to the original texts as being infallible. I cannot, in good conscience, attribute infallibility to any translation.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Bastoune said:
Hmmm... could it be YOU ?

(Answer: NO)

Wow, a member of Christian forums aaaand a stand up, sarcastic comic... Aren't we blessed to have someone of your unparalleled wit... :rolleyes:

Of course it's not me. I'm not infallible, nor is any other person who has ever lived, aside from Christ, of course.

You know what the answer ultimately has to come down to... :priest:

Are you just using the "priest" smilie to indicate something else or are you implying that your priests are infallible?
 
Upvote 0

Bastoune

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2003
1,283
47
50
New York, NY, USA
✟1,694.00
Faith
Catholic
All I am saying is to think of what Christ promised His Church:

"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." - Luke 10:16

Does that sound like what's going on in Christiandom today, with conflicting interpretations of scripture.... and no one with the authority to impose what is right?

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
(Matt. 18:15-18)

The terms "binding" and "loosening" are rabbinical terms of ecclesiastic authority. But hey, your brother sins in Protestantism, he either moves to a church where he isn't sinning, or starts his own! I've seen it happen: the birth of "non-denominationalism" :(

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:21-23 – Are you Protestants sure that confession to a priest is unscriptural? See also James 5:16)

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Jesus was sending out His Apostles to witness to the people, to convert them and by trusting in Jesus, bring about their salvation. The Church received the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised, and all the believers were filled with the joy of the Lord spiritually in their midst and in their hearts, while they, the physical Body of Christ on Earth.

“I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify] them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.” (John 17:14-19).

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Paul told Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Bastoune said:
All I am saying is to think of what Christ promised His Church:

"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." - Luke 10:16

Great. Let me guess, the Catholic church is "His church," right? Sorry Bastoune but that doesn't fly in this forum. You and your Catholic brethren may be able to purport such a thing amongst yourselves but the Kingdom of God is not confined to the institution of the Catholic congregation.

Does that sound like what's going on in Christiandom today, with conflicting interpretations of scripture.... and no one with the authority to impose what is right?

Your church has authority over you because you give them authority over you, not because God gave them authority over you.

The terms "binding" and "loosening" are rabbinical terms of ecclesiastic authority. But hey, your brother sins in Protestantism, he either moves to a church where he isn't sinning, or starts his own! I've seen it happen: the birth of "non-denominationalism" :(

We don't sin because of our denomination. We sin because we are, by nature, sinners. This is encompassing of all Christian camps, to include Catholicism. The Protestant reformation didn't come about because someone had a desire to be in a church that called sin "not sin." It started because of the "ecclesiastical authorities" departed from the faith of the Apostles and entertained unbiblical practices. I'm sure you disagree but that doesn't make it untrue.

Are you Protestants sure that confession to a priest is unscriptural? See also James 5:16)

Of course confession to a priest isn't unbiblical. People sin and priests are affected all the time. What's unbiblical is presuming that your priests have some "special power" to remit someone's sins. All a learned man of God has the authority to tell a fellow Christian is that the Truth of the Gospel is that Christ has freed them from the wrath of God and help them put on godliness. He has no God ordained power to keep someone from being forgiven or cause someone to be forgiven.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.