A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

[redleghunter]

Still not seeing the part that says something along the lines of "Scripture alone is the only authority anybody needs".

Which if you read the OP and definition of Sola Scriptura it does not mean the only authority but the only infallible authority to test truth claims.

See here:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scripturahas 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 Scripturato 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.

More here:
Understanding Sola Scriptura​

 

[thecolorsblend]

Which if you read the OP and definition of Sola Scriptura it does not mean the only authority but the only infallible authority to test truth claims.

Mm. Interesting.

Still not seeing the part that says Sacred Scripture is [insert whatever magical snowflake definition the Protestants subscribe to this week here] in all these quotations.

 

[redleghunter]

Mm. Interesting.

Still not seeing the part that says Sacred Scripture is [insert whatever magical snowflake definition the Protestants subscribe to this week here] in all these quotations.

Oh you are looking for say the Apostle Paul to say “Scriptures alone have you!”

Lol have not seen that specious request before.

What’s shown is that there is a clear demonstration in Holy Scriptures that what is written was the infallible standard to prove truth claims.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Citation needed.

We don't see anywhere in the Bible that they kept an oral tradition in addition to the written Word of God. That is proof enough alone if you desire to follow the Bible. But you don't desire to follow the Bible alone. I do because nothing in the Bible says that we will be held accountable at the judgment by some oral tradition. In John 12:48, Jesus says,

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12:48).

Um, I don't think you understand what you're saying here.

In the modern world, the printed word carries a certain level of authority with it. But that was not the case with the ancient world. Back then, scholars, intellectuals and even the common man trusted the spoken word more than the printed word. And the rest for that is because a public speaker can be questioned and his credentials can be verified; the same cannot be said of the printed word.

This is one reason why St. Paul took a lot of flack for not being such a talented public speaker. His gift was the written word more than the spoken word.

All of this ignores the obvious. Universal literacy (to the degree that we have it even today) is a fairly recent thing. Before the 20th century, the vast majority of people were illiterate. It would've been self-defeating to rely exclusively on the written word as the single religious authority in a time and place when most people could neither read nor write.

The Early Church made reference not only to Sacred Tradition in a general sense but also specifically that not every doctrine was codified in Sacred Scripture.

That's the game of Telephone... in a day and age when most people can't remember more than 140 characters. It's also played one person at a time.

Oral religious teachings (which were common in ancient judaism and also early Christianity) were given to dozens or even hundreds of people, all of whom were culturally acclimated to listening to long readings and lectures.

As true as that may be, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

As true as that may be, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I provided plenty of Scripture. But you are obviously not going to be open to seeing those verses plainly because they go against your church beliefs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Maybe everything we need, but does it have absolutely everything we may want, (that must be based on and line up with it) that is the question...?

God Bless!

Still not sure what you are getting at, friend. Need a little more explanation on what you are talking about.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please consider:

• The Bible was not put under one cover until the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (AD 397) accepted the official list of books.
• Not for over 1000 years after these early Councils was the printing press invented (~1450), so Bible manuscripts were quite rare and costly before the printing press came about.
  Between AD 33 and 1450 then, how did most people learn about the contents of Scripture, and who was the authoritative figure for the early Church during these centuries?

I believe History is written by the victors. While I do use History on rare occasions (it is only when it backs up some truth that the Bible already talks about). The Bible is my authority and not man made history. I really do not know if George Washington existed. I do not have a time machine. Sure, it is reasonable that he probably existed, but I really do not know with 100% certainty. But I do believe the Bible because it is God's Word and it has proven itself divine in origin ten times over by the fact that there are many evidences that back it up. Church tradition or history cannot be verified in the same way like the Bible can. The Bible is one of the most trust worthy documents you can rely upon because it was preserved throughout history by GOD. Jesus said, heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe History is written by the victors. While I do use History on rare occasions (it is only when it backs up some truth that the Bible already talks about). The Bible is my authority and not man made history. I really do not know if George Washington existed. I do not have a time machine. Sure, it is reasonable that he probably existed, but I really do not know with 100% certainty. But I do believe the Bible because it is God's Word and it has proven itself divine in origin ten times over by the fact that there are many evidences that back it up. Church tradition or history cannot be verified in the same way like the Bible can. The Bible is one of the most trust worthy documents you can rely upon because it was preserved throughout history by GOD. Jesus said, heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Not arguing your main point but the existence of George Washington actually supports your claim. We have written witness testimony of his death, his grave and his real estate transactions. We also have volumes of what he wrote too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have read all that, thanks very much for the link,

Now, i believe there is words of God that God can give today, specially to individuals about personal things, this needs to be in check with scripture of course because God does not contradict himself,

Is this ok with sola scriptura thinking?

Because i believe God saying something to a person, can be described as a word from God, and this not being in the bible, i don't think it aligns with the 'scripture alone is the only infallible source for life'

God can be our source of life. We should seek him a lot. And he is not going to contradict the bible

It is not a contradiction with Sola Scriptura for God to use life situations, a preacher, something in nature, and or God convicting them of something wrong or good because the Bible talks about how God can do these things already. It is already in His Word that God can do this. But this would be the glorifying of God's Word in some way. Let me give you an example:

Back when I lived in the state I grew up in: There was this baby deer that was living in my back yard once for about two weeks. It's mother would come by and feed it and then leave. However, it would make noises to it's mother at night, which would sometimes make it hard for me to sleep. So the one day, I was presented with an opportunity to get rid of this baby deer safely. So I decided to put on my black rubber work gloves and go outside in order to grab him gently and throw him over the chain link fence back into the forest where it's mother was at.

So I walked really slow and got really close to him; And just when I was about to grab him, he quickly bolted to the front of the house. This scared me a little, because I did not want the little guy getting hit by any cars in the front of the house, seeing I live on a busy street. However, when I got to the front of the house, he did not go near the traffic of the road, which was good. So he started to move back towards the back yard again. However, this time he went into the neighbor's back yard. This was perfect because they had a gate to their back yard so I could close it behind me, ensuring my capture of the little guy.

So I pinned him behind some stacked up wood behind the neighbor's shed and I grabbed him. He was kicking and screaming as I held him in my hands; And then I threw him over the chain link fence back into the forest. He landed safely on the other side of the fence; And later, I eventually seen him reunite with his mother (Which put me at ease).

However, afterwards I kept thinking to myself of how scared this baby deer was when I was holding it in my hands. I mean, it had no idea what I was going to do it. It probably thought I was trying to either eat it or hurt it in some way. In fact, I could actually feel the fear dripping off of this poor little guy.

Anyways, later that evening, when I was watching a video on "YouTube" by a certain Pastor, as per my usual routine thru out the week (back then), he told me about the following passages ...

Isaiah 13:11a - "And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity ..."

Isaiah 13:13 - "Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger."

Isaiah 13:14 - "And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land."

So I asked myself, "What is a roe"?
So I looked it up on the internet and low and behold, a roe is a baby deer! Here I was just a few hours earlier chasing a baby deer and I could feel it's fear in the fact that I was chasing it. This was a passage that God wanted to show me. He wanted to show me that the world will one day run in fear as the chased roe when God (i.e. Jesus Christ) will return to end all evil and iniquity. It was powerful! Coincidence you might say?

There were more of these kinds of things that took place.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not arguing your main point but the existence of George Washington actually supports your claim. We have written witness testimony of his death, his grave and his real estate transactions. We also have volumes of what he wrote too.

Yes, I am not denying the possibility that he existed. It sure sounds like that is the case. I would say 99% chance. But again, we do not know these eye witnesses and we do not know if some group of individuals had perfectly re-written history. Anything in life is possible. Granted, that seems highly unlikely, and so George more than likely existed. I am just saying that I cannot verify that fact like I can the Bible. The Bible is far more trust worthy than any man made documents on older history. That is all I am saying, my friend.

 

[Neogaia777]

Still not sure what you are getting at, friend. Need a little more explanation on what you are talking about.

I guess some would call it extra-biblical revelation or knowledge, only it's not supposed to be extra-biblical, but in line with the Bible, cause that's how we should test such things, and/or maybe some things that might have been unknown at the time, but the basic idea and concept thereof is actually in the Bible and scripture, and is actually Biblical...

Does that make any sense...?

God Bless!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I guess some would call it extra-biblical revelation or knowledge, only it's not supposed to be extra-biblical, but in line with the Bible, cause that's how we should test such things, and/or maybe some things that might have been unknown at the time, but the basic idea and concept thereof is actually in the Bible and scripture, and is actually Biblical...

Does that make any sense...?

God Bless!

IMO - If it is extra Biblical then it would not be tied to the Bible exactly.

 

[Neogaia777]

IMO - If it is extra Biblical then it would not be tied to the Bible exactly.

Certainly not all, but some, which is why they would need to be tested and/or proved or refined by scripture...

What do you mean by "tied to the Bible exactly", exactly...?

If the idea (or ideas) are Biblical, then they are Biblical, right...?

And those ideas would not be "exact word for word directly and exactly literally from the Bible", but would be essentially saying what the Bible says though or however...

Which is why it would need to be tested by Bible to find out if that is truly the case or not...?

God Bless!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Certainly not all, but some, which is why they would need to be tested and/or proved or refined by scripture...

What do you mean by "tied to the Bible exactly", exactly...?

If the idea (or ideas) are Biblical, then they are Biblical, right...?

And those ideas would not be "exact word for word directly and exactly literally from the Bible", but would be essentially saying what the Bible says though...

Which is why it would need to be tested by Bible to find out if that is truly the case or not...?

God Bless!

An online dictionary defines "extra-biblical" as "outside the Bible."

Source:
Extrabiblical dictionary definition | extrabiblical defined

Seeing the Bible talks about how God's creation (like the animal kingdom) can teach us things, the Gentiles (to an extent) do by nature do things contained in the Law, and how the Spirit convicts the world of sin, and righteousness, it is Scriptural. These things are not outside the Bible because the BIble talks about these things. Also, I believe GOD uses these things as a part of growing deeper into His Word, as well. So they are not extra biblical things. I know, because I have experienced them myself.

 

[Neogaia777]

An online dictionary defines "extra-biblical" as "outside the Bible."

Source:
Extrabiblical dictionary definition | extrabiblical defined

Seeing the Bible talks about how God's creation (like the animal kingdom) can teach us things, the Gentiles (to an extent) do by nature do things contained in the Law, and how the Spirit convicts the world of sin, and righteousness, it is Scriptural. These things are not outside the Bible because the BIble talks about these things. Also, I believe GOD uses these things as a part of growing deeper into His Word, as well. So they are not extra biblical things. I know, because I have experienced them myself.

Maybe I am using the wrong word, but/and because I am talking about ideas or new revelations about the Bible and/or God from the Bible, but are not literally the same exact words from the Bible (not literal word for word scripture IOW's) but are saying either/or what the Bible says or the same things the Bible is saying, (not scripture but are very much "scriptural") cause if it's not, it's false and is of no use at all, but if it is, it is... Which is why we must test such things with and by the Bible...

Does that make any sense...?

God Bless!

 

[thecolorsblend]

IMO - If it is extra Biblical then it would not be tied to the Bible exactly.

You mean something like the star of Bethlehem? Because the only reference we have to the star comes from St. Matthew's gospel. And yet, the significance of the star was well understood by eyewitnesses of it.

How could they have recognized the star of Bethlehem and understood its significance even though the Old Testament makes no obvious reference to the star?

 

[Neogaia777]

Maybe I am using the wrong word, but/and because I am talking about ideas or new revelations about the Bible and/or God from the Bible, but are not literally the same exact words from the Bible (not literal word for word scripture IOW's) but are saying either/or what the Bible says or the same things the Bible is saying, (not scripture but are very much "scriptural") cause if it's not, it's false and is of no use at all, but if it is, it is... Which is why we must test such things with and by the Bible...

Does that make any sense...?

God Bless!

And we all do this to a greater or lesser degree or another, for the only way you could not, or would not be doing it "at all", is if you always used only scripture only to always talk and/or always speak and/or say anything at all, otherwise we all do it to one lesser or greater degree or another...

It is the difference between (always) quoting scripture and interpreting scripture... And all interpretations of scripture must be thoroughly tested and/or proved by, and/or refined and/or modified by scripture, if it is any way wrong or in error in any way...

Surely you would agree with that/this, right...?

God Bless!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You mean something like the star of Bethlehem? Because the only reference we have to the star comes from St. Matthew's gospel. And yet, the significance of the star was well understood by eyewitnesses of it.

How could they have recognized the star of Bethlehem and understood its significance even though the Old Testament makes no obvious reference to the star?

Numbers 24:17
"I see him, but at a later time, ... A star will come out of Jacob, A scepter shall rise out of Israel. It will break Moab and tear down the people of Seth." (VOICE).

Numbers 24:17
"I see someone who will come some day. ... A star will come from Jacob. A ruler will rise from Israel. He will crush the heads of the Moabites. He will smash the skulls of the sons of Sheth." (ICB).

Numbers 24:17
"I see someone ·who will come someday [but not now], someone who will come, but not soon [I see him, but not near]. A star will come from Jacob; a ruler [scepter] will rise from Israel [Saul, then David and his descendants, including the Messiah]. He will crush the heads of the Moabites and smash the skulls of the sons of Sheth." (EXB).

 

[Neogaia777]

You mean something like the star of Bethlehem? Because the only reference we have to the star comes from St. Matthew's gospel. And yet, the significance of the star was well understood by eyewitnesses of it.

How could they have recognized the star of Bethlehem and understood its significance even though the Old Testament makes no obvious reference to the star?

It was in a, or some of the prophecies from some of the eastern religions that the wise men (from the east) were from and/or were a part of...?

And others seemed to know about it as well, some of the Jews, like Herod... Don't know exactly where they got it from or how they knew about it exactly though...?

But it wasn't "just the Bible" or the Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite religion only...

God Bless!

 

[Tomm]

I believe History is written by the victors. While I do use History on rare occasions (it is only when it backs up some truth that the Bible already talks about). The Bible is my authority and not man made history. I really do not know if George Washington existed. I do not have a time machine. Sure, it is reasonable that he probably existed, but I really do not know with 100% certainty. But I do believe the Bible because it is God's Word and it has proven itself divine in origin ten times over by the fact that there are many evidences that back it up. Church tradition or history cannot be verified in the same way like the Bible can. The Bible is one of the most trust worthy documents you can rely upon because it was preserved throughout history by GOD. Jesus said, heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Yes, yes, I do know the Bible is an authority.
But you still haven't proven why the Bible can be the sole authority during the past 2000 years.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, yes, I do know the Bible is an authority.
But you still haven't proven why the Bible can be the sole authority during the past 2000 years.

Jesus did not say that you will be judged by man's oral traditions in John 12:48.