Defining sola scriptura.

[Rick Otto]

Though you've previously denied it, for the life of me, it looks like your calling the bible God. But that's not the question. The question is, where in the bible does it say the bible interprets the bible? This is a definition of sola scriptura, is it not?

That any would call the bible God is as astounding as any one calling a piece of bread God, in my poetically inspired opinion.
Poetry astounds me.
You too?

...And actually no, the practice/doctrine/tradition of worshipping the bi.... I mean sola Scriptura, is not the same as what you may knowingly henceforth refer to as "the perspicuity of scripture"

Google THAT 5 times really fast!

 

[LostMarbels]

No, the word of God is not God. The Word of God is Christ not written words on a page. The Revelation of God was written and the codified by the Unified Church but the Revelation of God is not limited to just the written even St. Paul says as such. Sola Scripturaists have prevented God's Revelation by insisting the is only one way God can give His Revelation

There is only one God. One revelation, and one way to salvation.

Only God the creator has the ability to reveal his word as he see's fit.

 

[topcare]

In both examples above it is the "Bible alone" used to judge church teaching.

Do you find some other text used here??

If not - then the burden of proof for your argument is on the one making the argument. Was Christ in error in only using the Bible to do the Mark 7:6-13 ? Should we follow some other pattern than his and the one we see explicitly approved in Acts 17:11??

If so the burden of proof is on you to make your case.

in Christ,

Bob

No, it's on you. Show us all that are not as smart as you all are where it says in Scripture to use it alone. Chapter and verse

 

[topcare]

There is only one God. One revelation, and one way to salvation.

Only God the creator has the ability to reveal his word as he see's fit.

You do not get to say how God's reveals Himself. Yet you sola Scripturaist think you can tell God that He can only reveal Himself in a book

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No where is does the Bible say to use it alone, you may twist verses but you will never see the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura

Originally Posted by LostMarbels

I want you to solve 342+ 9489 -15 without using math.

Say it slowly.... sola scriptura. AKA Scripture alone.

How do you think it makes any sense at all to define "Scripture alone" without the use of scripture?
Again......Scripture.....Alone......
​

LM.......did you or others see this previous post of mine concerning SOLO and SOLA Scriptura?
Never saw no response to it............

http://www.christianforums.com/t7868361-2/#post67181903

Yeah, I can see where that can be confusing within a lot of Christianity today.

When did the term "SOLO" [vs "SOLA"]Scriptura originate?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7547378/
Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

Originally Posted by Ortho_Cat

"According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority.
The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.

Solo scriptura is, according to Mathison, an unbiblical position; proponents of sola scriptura should uphold the claim that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but should repudiate any position according to which individual Christians are the ultimate arbiters of Scriptural truth.
In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, and that a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead."

Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority | Called to Communion

Read and discuss!
​

.

 

[BobRyan]

you asked for Bible doctrine, Bible teaching on the doctrine of Marriage.

These are doctrinal statements in the Bible. Commands. Teaching. Doctrine.

===============================
Marriage -

Genesis 2.(for those that believe the Bible is reliable) Gen 2:22-24 ... Marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.


Matt 19:4-7
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Mark 10:6-9
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

1 Tim 3:2
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

As far as I know the RCC Doctrine on marriage agrees with these particular Bible verses - so I am not sure why you are putting this forward as something the Bible may not have much to say about.

So, you discount the episodes in the OT where men have many wives? Doesn't the Bible actually support marriage to multiple wives?

It's not a question of whether we agree or not. Where is it in the Bible? Doesn't the Bible support polygamy as well?
And what of pro-life doctrine?

"The two shall become one" is the Gen 2 original form and it is the one Christ affirms in the Gospels.

This is incredibly explicit in the text.

The fact that the Marriage doctrine can be abused in some fashion does not establish an "edit" to the word of God as even NT authors argue for going back to the original form.

The Bible is clear - just when some would need it to be unreliable as the standard of measure.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LostMarbels]

That any would call the bible God is as astounding as any one calling a piece of bread God, in my poetically inspired opinion.
Poetry astounds me.
You too?

Agreed.

The spoken word of God is God. The written word of God is scripture. But since Jesus is the word of God in the flesh, to know Jesus is to know his word.

As I said before, Jesus is living scripture, all he did or said is scripture, and even he quoted scripture. Jesus never committed a single act out of context of scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Sola scriptura - in the Bible

So while it is true that Acts 17:11 shows sola scriptura "in practice" -- ("They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were so")

And why take this subject so seriously?

Paul answers that in Gal 1:6-9.

Christ answers it in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[topcare]

Sola scriptura - in the Bible

So while it is true that Acts 17:11 shows sola scriptura "in practice" -- ("They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were so")

And why take this subject so seriously?

Paul answers that in Gal 1:6-9.

Christ answers it in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Try again, doesn't say nothing about using Scripture alone.

 

[Rick Otto]

No, it's on you. Show us all that are not as smart as you all are where it says in Scripture to use it alone. Chapter and verse

First you show us all that are not as smart you all where it says only your cardinals and bishops know what any of it means. Chapter and verse.

 

[LostMarbels]

Try again, doesn't say nothing about using Scripture alone.

What does it say?

 

[LostMarbels]

You do not get to say how God's reveals Himself. Yet you sola Scripturaist think you can tell God that He can only reveal Himself in a book

No. the fact of the matter is we recognize the supreme unmitigated immutable sovereignty of God, and realise he calls the shots. Our belief system has to line up with the standards he set. If I look some where other than the word of God than I am no longer looking at God. It is self explanatory.

Just come out and say: "I do not believe God can interpret scripture by only using his scripture to ordinary people. I believe some man needs to interpret scripture for God so people can understand it."

 

[BobRyan]

==============================

Sola scriptura - in the Bible

So while it is true that Acts 17:11 shows sola scriptura "in practice" -- ("They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were so")

And why take this subject so seriously?

Paul answers that in Gal 1:6-9.

Christ answers it in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

=============================

Those who want to argue that Christ's method is the wrong one - or that He used something other than scripture as the rule as the test and the standard - need to show their idea has bible support.

For now we have two great examples of "sola scriptura" and those who wish for some other model - have zip....

It is on them to come up with something to show their idea was ever accepted by the actual Bible authors.

No, it's on you. Show us all that are not as smart as you all are where it says in Scripture to use it alone. Chapter and verse

We differ apparently - I have the texts that show the model I am using.

What do you have?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SpyderByte]

you asked for Bible doctrine, Bible teaching on the doctrine of Marriage.

These are doctrinal statements in the Bible. Commands. Teaching. Doctrine.

===============================
Marriage -

Genesis 2.(for those that believe the Bible is reliable) Gen 2:22-24 ... Marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matt 19:4-7
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Mark 10:6-9
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

1 Tim 3:2
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

As far as I know the RCC Doctrine on marriage agrees with these particular Bible verses - so I am not sure why you are putting this forward as something the Bible may not have much to say about.

"The two shall become one" is the Gen 2 original form and it is the one Christ affirms in the Gospels.

This is incredibly explicit in the text.

The fact that the Marriage doctrine can be abused in some fashion does not establish an "edit" to the word of God as even NT authors argue for going back to the original form.

The Bible is clear - just when some would need it to be unreliable as the standard of measure.

in Christ,

Bob

Notice how they have to knowingly stoop to the same level as atheists do? To purposefully ignore context and twist Scripture so they can deny what is plainly taught? Even their own church teaches the sovereignty of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, but they'll twist whatever they want to their ends to "prove" their point.

 

[SpyderByte]

==============================

=============================

Those who want to argue that Christ's method is the wrong one - or that He used something other than scripture as the rule as the test and the standard - need to show their idea has bible support.

For now we have two great examples of "sola scriptura" and those who wish for some other model - have zip....

It is on them to come up with something to show their idea was ever accepted by the actual Bible authors.

We differ apparently - I have the texts that show the model I am using.

What do you have?

in Christ,

Bob

==============================

=============================

Those who want to argue that Christ's method is the wrong one - or that He used something other than scripture as the rule as the test and the standard - need to show their idea has bible support.

For now we have two great examples of "sola scriptura" and those who wish for some other model - have zip....

It is on them to come up with something to show their idea was ever accepted by the actual Bible authors.

We differ apparently - I have the texts that show the model I am using.

What do you have?

in Christ,

Bob

They have...nothing. They'll claim "sacred Tradition" but where is that laid out? They run to "see it says oral tradition" as if somehow that gives them carte blanche to make up what they want and then say "prove they didn't believe it!" I saw a poster earlier ask for quotes from all the past "popes" on the dogma of the bodily assumption, and as was expected, none came. Why? Because it was a later development out of thin air. It isn't scriptural. And there's the rub. That's why they attack sola scriptura so vehemently. Because it puts the lie to the "infallibility" of their denomination. If it can't be backed up by scripture, where even scripture tells us to check everything said against it to make sure it's the truth, it's nonsense. So let's see it. I'll put sola scriptura to the test with anyone here. You give me the backing for the bodily assumption and I'll give anyone the backing for anything claimed via sola scriptura. Provided of course it isn't something ridiculous that isn't the case. If it violates sola scriptura I'm certainly not going to chase evidence for it. Well, let's see, if we are to scour the scriptures daily to test what is being said, Hmmm seems the bible is pretty silent on Mary and her death. What does this tell us? John lived and wrote revelation at around 90ad, so I'm quite sure Mary had passed on by then. If she was so important to even be labeled as the woman of Revelation (btw she isn't and even the RCC says so) you'd think John would've mentioned her right?

So let's have it. Where's your evidence for the bodily assumption! I won't hold my breath waiting....

Eta:
Because I'm sure I'll be asked to prove what I said about the RCC and the woman of Revelation...

[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from[bless and do not curse]Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6,[bless and do not curse]13–17); cf.[bless and do not curse]Is 50:1;[bless and do not curse]66:7;[bless and do not curse]Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12

That's from the US conference of Catholic Bishops, so if you think it's not in keeping with your church, you may wanna have a get together cause there's a big fat schism there!

 

[SpyderByte]

About seven more books than you do.

“I’m glad to see you know what the canon is” Paul smiled. “That’s a very important issue. For example, the Roman Catholic canon is different from the Protestant canon, as it contains seven more Old Testament books, Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabbees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, as well as small portions of Ester and Daniel. This represents the canon of the Septuagint….”

“Actually” John noted, “the manuscripts of the Septuagint that contain these books are Christian in origin, correct? Have you read the tremendous work of Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church? He deals with this issue in-depth with the most modern scholarly insights.”

“Well, no, I haven’t” Paul replied. “But, be that as it may, the fact is the early Church decided which books belonged in the canon….”

“Which canon?” John interrupted. “Old Testament or New?”

“Well, both” Paul replied. “There was no consensus as to what books were in the Old Testament amongst the Jews until the Council of Jamnia….”

“That’s untrue” John asserted. “As Beckwith proved, there was indeed a clear consensus on the Old Testament canon long before the time of the New Testament. This is seen in noting the testimony of Josephus, the testimony of the Jewish writings themselves, and the issue of the books that were ‘laid up” in the Temple. Further, there was no ‘Council of Jamnia.’ There was discussion concerning a couple of minor books amongst some Jewish leaders, but surely no ‘council’ in the sense of a formal meeting with voting, etc. The canon of the Old Testament was clearly understood, and clearly functional, at the time of the Lord Jesus’ ministry in Palestine. And what is also clear is that the canon used by Jesus and His apostles did not include the apocryphal books.”

“I am uncertain about those issues” Paul replied, “but I am certain that the choosing of the book of the Bible….”

“You mean the New Testament?” John interrupted.

“OK, the New Testament….was a process undertaken by the early Church, which was thoroughly Catholic.”

“Catholic, or Roman Catholic?” John asked.

Paul looked surprised by the question. “There is a difference?”

“Of course” John replied. “Catholic simply means ‘universal,’ and it was a term used in the early Church to differentiate true believers from those outside. ‘Roman Catholic’ carries far more ‘baggage’ than the mere term ‘Catholic.’ It includes, as it is used by modern Roman apologists, the idea of Papal authority, doctrines such as purgatory, indulgences, Marian dogmas, etc. The early church was ‘catholic’ but it was surely not
‘Roman Catholic.’”


...

The rest of this very insightful dialogue here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.p...in-a-recent-catholic-answers-article-vintage/

 

[MoreCoffee]

Please return to the thread's topic. The current line of discussion is off topic.

The topic of this thread is defined by the original post which is shown below.

How does your denomination define its doctrine of scripture and does it have a specific section or sections that tell you that scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures?

If so can you quote from the official doctrinal standard, show what passages of holy scripture are used to support its declaration on this subject, and explain its meaning in your own words, please?

 

[SpyderByte]

Please return to the thread's topic. The current line of discussion is off topic.

The topic of this thread is defined by the original post which is shown below.

Ah so anything that Roman Catholics bring up is cool, and can't be responded to, but when we do respond it's "off topic"...yeah cause that's not transparent or anything....

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ah so anything that Roman Catholics bring up is cool, and can't be responded to, but when we do respond it's "off topic"...yeah cause that's not transparent or anything....

Please keep to the thread topic. It ought to supply plenty of opportunity to present views about scripture and its role in defining doctrine as well as sola scriptura as a theory of authority in the church. There's also plenty of room for presenting scripture to support one's doctrine of scripture and one's view of sola scriptura. And one can explain what the scripture and doctrine mean in one's own words so sticking with the thread topic is likely to be satisfying for anybody who wants to discuss the doctrine of scripture.

 

[SpyderByte]

Please keep to the thread topic. It ought to supply plenty of opportunity to present views about scripture and its role in defining doctrine as well as sola scriptura as a theory of authority in the church. There's also plenty of room for presenting scripture to support one's doctrine of scripture and one's view of sola scriptura. And one can explain what the scripture and doctrine mean in one's own words so sticking with the thread topic is likely to be satisfying for anybody who wants to discuss the doctrine of scripture.

Then make sure you reprimand your RCC friends as well. They bring an aspect up, and you swoop in to call foul when we present arguments against it. That's not a dialogue, it's a monologue. Although that may be the way you prefer it since your op has been answered continuously throughout this thread yet we still keep hearing it hasn't....