Defining sola scriptura.

Albion said:

That's because we ARE mammals.

The point is that what you've described is a religion--by definition. It's not a typical religion but it's still a religion because it meets the definition of a religion.

I understand that you want to say that you are not an adherent of any organized religion and don't subscribe to any of the failings that you associate with them, but yours is still a religion, if, however, a personal one.

Click to expand...

That is fine. It simply doesn't matter what it is called. I call myself a christian because I confess Jesus. I go to many different churches just because I want to hear the word of God, but I do not get into the dogma.

But, my personal belief system is not what I'm trying to convey.

Here I'am, a person that does not hold to any denominational practices at all. And I know Jesus Christ as lord. My relationship is my dogma. 100% sola scriptura, and it works. I do not need a church to explain a God that wants a personal relationship with me. God is eager to hang out with you. He loves our company, and nothing in the bible is to hard for Him to explain if you will ask.

Metal Minister said:

Tad, we've been over this. You've been nothing but disingenuous since you were informed. As a Reformed Baptist, I hold to Sola Scriptura. The bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine for the church. Stop trying to find wiggle room in the slightly different verbiage. Sola Scriptura is Sola Scriptura. You don't like it, I understand. It disproves a number of your denomination's dogmas, but that isn't our problem.

Click to expand...

I've been asking for the official definition of sola scriptura for years now, not a repost of post #11, but anything linked to an official source. Perhaps it's the posting style or perhaps it's the shoddy understanding of Catholicism, but I'm not that gullible that I'm willing to take anyone's word for it. I, like the sola scripturists, like to read things for myself. Therefore, I would still like to examine any official definitions formulated by any of the sola scripturist denominations. Twelve years ago when I converted to Catholicism I never had to deal with this kind of obstructionism. Catholics were happy to link me to official documents which I could access and read at my own leisure. Ironic that it took a Catholic to recently provide the source for what we have been told is the official, historical, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura. Here are all seventeen words again in context:

9] In the pure churches and schools these public common writings have been always regarded as the sum and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God's Word, and firmly established against the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings, and has expressly drawn this distinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.

Click to expand...

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord

Notice, the word infallible isn't in there. Already you've deviated from the official, historical, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura.

But, beyond that, I'm also seeing deviations from the definition offered us to in post #11. Concepts usually associated with sola scriptura such as scripture interprets scripture, the perspicuity of scripture or the Holy Spirit teaching individuals about scripture.

Really, the official official, historical, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura offered to us in post #11 is limited to an unnamed group of churchmen and then only for norming dogma. All this other stuff that comes up in the guise of sola scriptura isn't really sola scriptura. Or, so I'm told.

So, how about it? Surely Reformed Baptists have defined this iconic concept/principle/practice/rule/teaching/doctrine beyond seventeen words.

Finally, I hate to burst burst your bubble, but sola scriptura hasn't disproved, overturned or altered any dogma of the Catholic Church one tittle. Besides, that's not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is for norming dogma 'among us', whoever 'us' is. I kind of doubt the authors had Reformed Baptists in mind when they penned that.

tadoflamb said:

I've been asking for the official definition of sola scriptura for years now

Click to expand...

And when you got it, you pretended you hadn't.

tadoflamb said:

Notice, the word infallible isn't in there. Already you've deviated from the official, historical, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

And again, I will point out that man's definition of Gods word is not Gods word itself.

The word infallible is in the word of God attesting to itself:

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

So this verse of scripture is telling us the miracles and acts performed by Jesus are infallible proofs. We learn about the miracles of Jesus by reading the word of God, so the written words we read about the miracles of Jesus in the word of God are infallible proofs. Now we all know that Jesus said a little leaven, leavens the whole lump. Meaning a small error makes all of it in error. That being said, the reference of any part of scripture being referenced as infallible makes all scripture referenced as infallible.

The other word in scripture that ties into this is Immutable:

Heb 6:17-18 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

This helps to concret the miracles of Jesus as truth. Since Jesus is God and God cannot lie, we can tie in the infallibility of those scripture with the immutability of God, and the result is that scripture is an immutably infallible truth.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura can be easily refuted with a bit of very simple logic. Sola Scriptura is the belief that all necessary teachings are contained within the collection of writings now known as the Holy Bible. The Bible itself contains no table of contents, no indication of which books to include or not to include. Therefore, someone must have used something other than the Bible in order to compile the Bible. Therefore the Bible is not itself sufficient. That is the reason Jesus left us a one Teaching Church based on his Apostles [ as per bible ] then that very same "Apostolic" Church compiled the completed Holy Bible that we have today. Why is that so difficult to comprehend ?
It still seems to me that Christian Sola Scriptura is based on a non biblical doctrine (sola Scriptura) and as such is a false belief system based upon Christian Sola Scriptura doctrine.
Christian sola Scriptura doctrine=/=Christian sola Scriptura doctrine

barryatlake said:

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura can be easily refuted with a bit of very simple logic. Sola Scriptura is the belief that all necessary teachings are contained within the collection of writings now known as the Holy Bible. The Bible itself contains no table of contents, no indication of which books to include or not to include. Therefore, someone must have used something other than the Bible in order to compile the Bible. Therefore the Bible is not itself sufficient. That is the reason Jesus left us a one Teaching Church based on his Apostles [ as per bible ] then that very same "Apostolic" Church compiled the completed Holy Bible that we have today. Why is that so difficult to comprehend ?
It still seems to me that Christian Sola Scriptura is based on a non biblical doctrine (sola Scriptura) and as such is a false belief system based upon Christian Sola Scriptura doctrine.
Christian sola Scriptura doctrine=/=Christian sola Scriptura doctrine

Click to expand...

Why do you think God, your creator is not able to convey his message without your logic?

Take a deaf, blind, mute that has never been communicated to ever in his life. Can God communicate to this man?

Yes God can, but that challenged person can not perform sola Scriptura by him/herself. Comprehend ?

barryatlake said:

Yes God can, but that challenged person can not perform sola Scriptura by him/herself. Comprehend ?

Click to expand...

The thief on the cross..... He was saved by what denomination?

Who explained who Jesus was to this man?

LostMarbles, yes he is saved,but he certainly did not have sola Scriptura, so he was not saved by Sola Scriptura.

barryatlake said:

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura can be easily refuted with a bit of very simple logic. Sola Scriptura is the belief that all necessary teachings are contained within the collection of writings now known as the Holy Bible. The Bible itself contains no table of contents, no indication of which books to include or not to include. Therefore, someone must have used something other than the Bible in order to compile the Bible. Therefore the Bible is not itself sufficient. That is the reason Jesus left us a one Teaching Church based on his Apostles [ as per bible ] then that very same "Apostolic" Church compiled the completed Holy Bible that we have today. Why is that so difficult to comprehend ?
It still seems to me that Christian Sola Scriptura is based on a non biblical doctrine (sola Scriptura) and as such is a false belief system based upon Christian Sola Scriptura doctrine.
Christian sola Scriptura doctrine=/=Christian sola Scriptura doctrine

Click to expand...

If you're cooking an apple pie, do you go by the written recipe or do you look for oral instructions from someone 2,000 years ago?

If your pie turns out yummy, is it not an apple pie because you followed the written recipe? Was the written recipe insufficient or sufficient? Did the author leave something out of your recipe, such that your pie was crummy?

Standing Up, using your recipe analogy,[ Post # 630 ] we look into our cooking book [ Sacred Scripture ] for the correct recipe for apple pie authored by the Head Pastry Chef [ Our Lord ] then because our Recipe Book/ Holy Bible is almost two-millennium years old, we can readily double check that particular apple pie recipe through the original Teaching of that Chief Chef [ Our Lord / God Jesus ] to all His future chefs. The reason we need to check on each source is that a person attempting to use that apple pie recipe may use the wrong apples, for an example, or may use the wrong shortening for the pie crust, because as with our Holy Bible we may not understand the ancient concept of all the various ancient i.e. apples or ingredient names, along with the various recipes for that one particular apple pie, same with the Holy Bible, we first need to understand the various literary forms found in Holy Scripture: myth, legend, debate, fiction, Gospel, parable, allegory, letter, and apocalyptic language. Even the Bible tells us that most of us are "unlearned " [ 2 Peter 3:16 ]. To make sure that all the necessary ingredients are in that particular pie recipe [ doctrinal teaching ] we must double check with the community of pastry chefs that the community [ Christian Community ] passed on down through the years. Both are necessary for the correct recipe, both keep the pie from crumbling, which unfortunately did happen because the 16TH Century chefs never double checked the recipe with both the book or the community of pastry chefs. Both are necessary for the correct apple pie.

LostMarbels said:

Not at all true. What I stated is in post #596



When I need insight I pray. I ask the holy spirit to reveal his insight to me in Christ Jesus name, and I ask Jesus to forgive my pride in thinking I have the answers. Why? If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

I ask because I believe God has the answers. I receive answers because I am not wavering in that faith.

When I meet a pastor, The first thing I do is confess Jesus Christ is the word of God made flesh, and ask them to do the same. If they cannot, or will not confess Jesus Christ, I will not accept them as inspired by God. Dont get me wrong. There are allot of good pastors that speak good biblical truth in their flesh, but do they understand what they preach?

Why do I do this?

1Jn 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Because yet again the word of God has given me instruction on what is to be trusted. If you just look into the perfect word of God, it will direct you steeps, and speak only truth.

Click to expand...

Yet notice the Bible no where says to use it a you protestants do. The Bible does say the Church is the pillar of Faith, not a book even though that book be a holy book still Christ did not leave us a book. You Scripture only people do pervert the Bible by using in such a disgraceful manner and assume that God will only give you the right answer.

topcare said:

Yet notice the Bible no where says to use it a you protestants do.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does just that in many places. It describes itself as of ultimate value and worth, is for our guidance, completely dependable, and to be used by us on an ongoing basis for information and edification. What is NOT in the Bible is any comment to the effect that "It's just a book," "It's not meant to be studied," "Never claims to be finished or complete," or any other the other sneers we have read on these forums from some folks.

The Bible does say the Church is the pillar of Faith,

Click to expand...

No, it says that of the people of God. You are misrepresenting that passage.

not a book even though that book be a holy book still Christ did not leave us a book.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, Christ often cited the Scriptures when teaching his disciples and conversing with his enemies. And the Scriptures themselves describe the contents as having been inspired by God himself. That Christ didn't "leave us a book" is true only to the extent that most of it had been "left to us" before Christ's Incarnation!

topcare said:

Yet notice the Bible no where says to use it a you protestants do.

Click to expand...

Where in the entire bible is there any verse at all that tells us to go to a person to understand the Word of God?

How did Jesus Christ himself respond to the religious that were full of knowledge concerning scripture?

God has spoken of religion and traditions many times. Site chapter and verse when God has ever spoken about them in a favorable manner.

To help out, I know of one verse that defines true religion: Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

topcare said:

The Bible does say the Church is the pillar of Faith, not a book even though that book be a holy book still Christ did not leave us a book.

Click to expand...

No. The church are the people of God.

topcare said:

You Scripture only people do pervert the Bible by using in such a disgraceful manner and assume that God will only give you the right answer.

Click to expand...

Knowledge is promised to any who ask.

The other thing to note is what Jesus christ spoke about doctrine: Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

If you do the will of God you will understand the doctrine of God, because as Jesus lived, and spoke, he did so by the doctrine of who sent him.

barryatlake said:

Standing Up, using your recipe analogy,[ Post # 630 ] we look into our cooking book [ Sacred Scripture ] for the correct recipe for apple pie authored by the Head Pastry Chef [ Our Lord ] then because our Recipe Book/ Holy Bible is almost two-millennium years old, we can readily double check that particular apple pie recipe through the original Teaching of that Chief Chef [ Our Lord / God Jesus ] to all His future chefs. The reason we need to check on each source is that a person attempting to use that apple pie recipe may use the wrong apples, for an example, or may use the wrong shortening for the pie crust, because as with our Holy Bible we may not understand the ancient concept of all the various ancient i.e. apples or ingredient names, along with the various recipes for that one particular apple pie, same with the Holy Bible, we first need to understand the various literary forms found in Holy Scripture: myth, legend, debate, fiction, Gospel, parable, allegory, letter, and apocalyptic language. Even the Bible tells us that most of us are "unlearned " [ 2 Peter 3:16 ]. To make sure that all the necessary ingredients are in that particular pie recipe [ doctrinal teaching ] we must double check with the community of pastry chefs that the community [ Christian Community ] passed on down through the years. Both are necessary for the correct recipe, both keep the pie from crumbling, which unfortunately did happen because the 16TH Century chefs never double checked the recipe with both the book or the community of pastry chefs. Both are necessary for the correct apple pie.

Click to expand...

That was the question. Can you make an apple pie via the written recipe or not? Why the need to go elsewhere? Try the pie.

Guess that is the best you can do. No support for your sola Scriptura either from you or the Holy bible. Jesus left us with a teaching Apostolic Church that contains the correct interpretation of Holy Sacred Scripture, one interpretation not a myriad of conflicting interpretations as found in all the man-made churches we find starting from the 16Th Century, sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition , never used by Jesus or any of His followers.

Standing Up said:

That was the question. Can you make an apple pie via the written recipe or not? Why the need to go elsewhere? Try the pie.

Click to expand...

My sister-in-law struggled with pie crusts (written recipe) until she came to visit one Thanksgiving and I taught her how (spoken recipe). Now she makes beautiful pies.

LostMarbels said:

Where in the entire bible is there any verse at all that tells us to go to a person to understand the Word of God?

How did Jesus Christ himself respond to the religious that were full of knowledge concerning scripture?

God has spoken of religion and traditions many times. Site chapter and verse when God has ever spoken about them in a favorable manner.

To help out, I know of one verse that defines true religion: Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.



No. The church are the people of God.




Knowledge is promised to any who ask.

The other thing to note is what Jesus christ spoke about doctrine: Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

If you do the will of God you will understand the doctrine of God, because as Jesus lived, and spoke, he did so by the doctrine of who sent him.

Click to expand...

I heard and took part in that drivel before. The protestant evangelical way is the wrong way

topcare said:

I heard and took part in that drivel before. The protestant evangelical way is the wrong way

Click to expand...

Whenever any of us has nothing of value to add to the conversation, it's always a good idea to let pass the impulse to write something anyway.

topcare said:

Yet notice the Bible no where says to use it a you protestants do. The Bible does say the Church is the pillar of Faith, not a book even though that book be a holy book still Christ did not leave us a book. You Scripture only people do pervert the Bible by using in such a disgraceful manner and assume that God will only give you the right answer.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness you cannot be speaking that way about any of us because we assume God will give ANYone "the right answer", providing their faith isn't split between Him and some pillar.