Defining sola scriptura.

[Rick Otto]

No, but I am noticing a serious disconnect between what you as a sola scripturist believe and practice and what the sola scripturist author of post#11 believes and practices.

Maybe you can explain to me how this brings accountability among sola scripturists. (see post #11)


And while we're at it, did you at any point bother to reaffirm using the bible as your only rule, those beliefs and practices you've retained from the Catholic Church, or were you happy enough to accept what the Church had handed down to you using the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the 2000 year teaching Magisterium of the Church?

They pulled the rug out from under their own over institutionalized feet for me in first grade catechism.
The bible has always had a way affirming itself to be the most authoritative for me, especially in light of how I saw the RCC and other denominations use them, and how horribly stained the personal histories within the Magesterium became.

 

[barryatlake]

Mr. Otto, in case you forget, we are all stained, including His Church. Jesus said there would be 'bad and good ' in His Church. If you believe the history of your church is without blemish then your church was not formed by God.

 

[Rick Otto]

Topic- defining sola Scriptura;... ~}

That's what I thought when I read the thread title, but the topic changes in the OP text.

...But there's no disconnect there, if you ask the author.
He says so.

 

[Rick Otto]

Mr. Otto, in case you forget, we are all stained, including His Church. Jesus said there would be 'bad and good ' in His Church. If you believe the history of your church is without blemish then your church was not formed by God.

That would be the RCC according to them. They baptized and confirmed me,... so I guess you are right. There are some "bad" in the Magesterium.
Thank you for your humble agreement on this important point.

 

[barryatlake]

So, Mr.Otto my post 339 is on topic why do you side-step it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Topic- defining sola Scriptura;

You non-Catholics "Bible-Alone" adherents simply reject certain verses and only cherry -pick one verse and that being {2nd Tim.3: 16-17 }
__________________

How about this verse?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7367166/
1 Corin 4:6 No above what is written

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus I was studying on this verse along with the greek texts and though there is a variance in one of the greek texts [W-H], I was wondering how others view this verse.
The way this is worded, it appears to say do not go beyond "what is written".

1 Corin 4:6
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written,
that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Originally Posted by DD2008

LLOJ,

You have hit on an interesting part of scripture that I personally find very interesting.

I believe that the example of Christ as set forth in the gospels and the example of worship set forth in the New Testament, the example of all of those who worshiped God at that time were clearly sola scriptura IF a prophet or apostle was not present.

It had been 400 years since the last prophet wrote at the time Christ was incarnate. Sola Scriptura was well ingrained into Jewish theology at that time. Christ's very recorded words support scripture in the strongest way.
​

.

You won't get an argument from me.

 

[Rick Otto]

So, Mr.Otto my post 339 is on topic why do you side-step it.

Like I said, I agree with you that it is the topic.
I re-iterate that it is the OP author who disagrees.
I didn't side step, (how naughty!) I simply respected the OP author's disagreement with us.

 

[barryatlake]

Littlelamb, 1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves against Protestants because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Littlelamb, 1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process.
Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves against Protestants because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith

Yes, it does appear to be a fairly controversial, confusing verse, which either Protestants or RCs can use to their advantage or not.

I would be happy to discuss it on that thread.......


.


.

 

[barryatlake]

ON TOPIC POST

Topic- defining sola Scriptura;

Jesus fulfilled the laws and established His church which has existed since the Apostles and who still has Apostolic succession today, so unless we missed the second coming and Jesus established new laws and abolished the laws that the Catholic church still uses today during the Reformation, then the Catholic Church is the true Church Jesus established and things like the real presence in Eucharist is still the truth, there is no other way around it. No mere human can abolish what Jesus created. You cannot show up 1500 years later and claim that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist and the Bible is now the only authority you need. Jesus is the only one who can make changes like that, and you can not show me where Jesus said:...." bring your brother to a Bible instead of His Church......" { Matt.18: 15-18 ] to His Apostles not to a Bible Jesus said these words: "He who hears you, hears me..... " {Luke 10:16 } also, the following verses gives support in Apostolic Traditional Teaching { Matt.28:18- 20 } I will end this post showing why the Catholic/ Apostolic Church teaches that both Holy Scripture along with Holy Apostolic Traditional Teaching is necessary for the "Fullness of the Christian Faith " and that verse is {2nd Thess. 2:15 |} You non-Catholics "Bible-Alone" adherents simply reject certain verses and only cherry -pick one verse and that being {2nd Tim.3: 16-17 }

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Mr. Otto, in case you forget, we are all stained, including His Church. Jesus said there would be 'bad and good ' in His Church. If you believe the history of your church is without blemish then your church was not formed by God.

Don't Protestants and EOs also comprise the Church?

Kindgdom Bible Studies Lambs Book of Life Part 1

*SNIP*

The book stores are filled to overflowing today with all types of books dealing with every aspect of earthly life.
Even in the church world there are books setting forth every kind of viewpoint relating to God, the Bible, doctrine, Christian experience, and church order.
However the subject material of most of these books largely contains a message of religious tradition and spiritual death



.

 

[drjean]

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?

I've scanned through the thread (gasp!) and see where most of the Scripture you seek has been given. It can't be a succinct concept because of variances that some of the Protestant religions have made--more recent than not. I believe the basic way of looking at what we "all" profess to believe (though some do not practice it, such as the PCUSA now ordains homosexuals-which would not be allowed under sola scriptura guidance) ...anyway the different religions do look at how sola Scriptura is applied...realizing the terms for that mainly are the Regulative Principle vs the Normative Principle.

The Regulative Principle
This principle teaches, in essence, that we may only do that which God has actually prescribed in the Scripture. So in worship, we should not, for example, engage in skits for church, or “special music,” because these things are not prescribed by God as the function of believers as they meet in an formal setting for worship. (I’m not arguing for or against those things, just giving an example of a Regulative-type argument.)
The Normative Principle
This principle says that we may do anything that God does not strictly prohibit. If God doesn’t say NOT to sing from a hymn book, or use PowerPoint, or show a Batman movie, or have a weight-lifting team break bricks with their heads, etc., then it should be allowed in corporate worship.

The Regulative Principle vs. The Normative Principle - Christian Worldview | Christian Worldview

While it is agreed that usually this is only evident when it comes to the way we worship, it has been applied at other times.


Since the OP is Catholic, my curiosity is expanded because of what my local Catholic friends are concerned about, that this current Pope speaks off the cuff and against previous church beliefs, and not as previous Popes did, "ex cathedra." While the faith that Catholics have put in their extra study books and priests might have set them up for such a Pope, it proves to Protestants the very reason for embracing "sola Scriptura", imo.

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean?

from John MacArthur Sep 24, 2012 Category: Articles

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.


But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).


Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).


Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” — Westminster Confession of Faith

Adapted from John MacArthur’s contribution to Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean? by John MacArthur | Ligonier Ministries Blog

And while this may have been posted before, I recall not, I find it important to insert here, from CARM:

But, the final authority is the Scripture alone because the Scripture alone is what is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and not past church councils, tradition, commentaries, and opinions. Scripture is is above them all.

I found this an interesting read: What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura? by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey


We all know what happens when you form a committee...compromise. My Jewish friends tell me that you can ask 2 Jews for an opinion and get 3 different answers! To me, Sola Scriptura doesn't mean we cannot use outside sources for guidance, it means that we don't NEED them, truly, as God's Word is sufficient, and if we use them and they confuse us regarding God's Word, we must rely totally on God's Word.

Let us remember that Jesus, Himself used only Scripture to rebuke the devil: "It is written"... and the Word had not yet been revealed to us written in the New(er) Testament.

Again I wonder if the query is an honest heart search...which I hope it is.

 

[barryatlake]

LittleLambof Jesus, Jesus only formed one church and that one church was only formed on His apostles and not on any other man or woman with names as Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. Jesus never spent 3plus years with anybody else but His apostles and He taught them the Teachings of His Christian Faith. So if the names of any other man or women are not placed in the Bible while having churches formed on them, then they are not Apostolic. Jesus formed His Apostolic/Catholic Church to make sure that His teaching would be understood and applied correctly. All non-Catholic/Apostolic churches teach different from one another. They may call themselves Christians because they truly have barrowed some of the basic tenets of His One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, but not the "Fullness of the Faith"

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've scanned through the thread (gasp!) and see where most of the Scripture you seek has been given. It can't be a succinct concept because of variances that some of the Protestant religions have made--more recent than not. I believe the basic way of looking at what we "all" profess to believe (though some do not practice it, such as the PCUSA now ordains homosexuals-which would not be allowed under sola scriptura guidance) ...anyway the different religions do look at how sola Scriptura is applied...realizing the terms for that mainly are the Regulative Principle vs the Normative Principle.

The Regulative Principle vs. The Normative Principle - Christian Worldview | Christian Worldview

While it is agreed that usually this is only evident when it comes to the way we worship, it has been applied at other times.


Since the OP is Catholic, my curiosity is expanded because of what my local Catholic friends are concerned about, that this current Pope speaks off the cuff and against previous church beliefs, and not as previous Popes did, "ex cathedra." While the faith that Catholics have put in their extra study books and priests might have set them up for such a Pope, it proves to Protestants the very reason for embracing "sola Scriptura", imo.

Adapted from John MacArthur’s contribution to Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean? by John MacArthur | Ligonier Ministries Blog

And while this may have been posted before, I recall not, I find it important to insert here, from CARM:


I found this an interesting read: What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura? by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey


We all know what happens when you form a committee...compromise. My Jewish friends tell me that you can ask 2 Jews for an opinion and get 3 different answers! To me, Sola Scriptura doesn't mean we cannot use outside sources for guidance, it means that we don't NEED them, truly, as God's Word is sufficient, and if we use them and they confuse us regarding God's Word, we must rely totally on God's Word.

Let us remember that Jesus, Himself used only Scripture to rebuke the devil: "It is written"... and the Word had not yet been revealed to us written in the New(er) Testament.

Again I wonder if the query is an honest heart search...which I hope it is.

Thanks for paying attention to the original post and offering scripture for the definition that you've provided. I will not, at this time, comment on the scriptures you've provided. But thank you for supplying them.

God bless and keep you always.

 

[psalms 91]

LittleLambof Jesus, Jesus only formed one church and that one church was only formed on His apostles and not on any other man or woman with names as Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. Jesus never spent 3plus years with anybody else but His apostles and He taught them the Teachings of His Christian Faith. So if the names of any other man or women are not placed in the Bible while having churches formed on them, then they are not Apostolic. Jesus formed His Apostolic/Catholic Church to make sure that His teaching would be understood and applied correctly. All non-Catholic/Apostolic churches teach different from one another. They may call themselves Christians because they truly have barrowed some of the basic tenets of His One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, but not the "Fullness of the Faith"

I do believe that when any Catholic gets to heaven he will be surprised and embarrassed that he didnt recognize his fellow brothers of other churchs. I also think that he will owe all of them an apology. I do appreciate the honesty though as I have known this for years but when I press a Catholic they will say that they believe I am saved and a brother but they do not really believe that, not if they believe this

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LittleLambof Jesus, Jesus only formed one church and that one church was only formed on His apostles and not on any other man or woman with names as Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. Jesus never spent 3plus years with anybody else but His apostles and He taught them the Teachings of His Christian Faith. So if the names of any other man or women are not placed in the Bible while having churches formed on them, then they are not Apostolic. Jesus formed His Apostolic/Catholic Church to make sure that His teaching would be understood and applied correctly.

All non-Catholic/Apostolic churches teach different from one another. They may call themselves Christians because they truly have barrowed some of the basic tenets of his One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, but not the "Fullness of the Faith"

We are quite aware on how the RCC views itself in relation to the rest of Christianity.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7716869/
Is the RCC the church the Apostles set up?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7843190-26/
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

It's pretty clear that the RCC of today is not the same as the non-denominational church the Apostles knew. The question then becomes, "How far from the original church is it...and which developments, innovations, or changes are benign and which are contrary to the Scriptures?"
If truth be told, there are probably fewer threads about the RCC than there are posters whose only purpose in writing any post is to say "I'm Catholic so I believe ____. Too bad about you."

About half of them have made a point of including the word "Catholic" in their names. When's the last time we had anyone doing either of those with, say, Methodism?

Hey for all we know LLOJ could be Catholic in disguise and it testing the faith of Catholics on this board.

Either that or he's part of a sinister plan to take over CF

.

 

[Metal Minister]

The Church discerns it to be so just as she discerned the holy scriptures.

So, it is not what the Church has in the Scripture that calls something tradition that is tradition, or what the Canon Laws and writings the Church has produced since the writing of Scripture that calls something tradition that is tradition, but what the Church says is tradition now is tradition?

Sola Ecclesia.

 

[psalms 91]

Funny I thought the church started in Acts 2 and I know that the early church went to synegogue to learn

 

[Metal Minister]

Lol! If you see the other team scoring a point,... move the goalposts!

It's a common tactic I've seen from our RC brothers. When in doubt, pretend the RCC defined the scriptures...too bad their first dogmatic decree on this wasn't until Trent, and the scriptures were being copied and circulated from the first writings, and then early church used the old testament as their primary scriptures....

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sola Ecclesia.

Not that but Soli Deo gloria. Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

The Church is the body of Christ. He is worthy of praise.