Defining sola scriptura.

[Metal Minister]

My apologies if you have posted a definition of sola scriptura with scripture backing and explanation in your own words of what it means. I looked through the thread and haven't seen it, it is a very long thread now so I may have missed it. I've seen CaliforniaJosiah's seventeen word definition but it had no scripture backing and the explanation has been repeated (post #11 I think) so often that it is becoming almost invisible - I admit that having read it two or three times I gave up reading it more and I skip over reposts of it now. But if you can direct me to your post that contains the things I asked for then I will gladly read it if I have not already read it.

*sigh* I detest repeating myself. So I will use a quote from yet another source, and one who is well known as a scholar on the canon.

sola Scriptura— the Scriptures alone are the Word of God and, therefore, the only infallible rule for life and doctrine

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-alone/

I highly recommend you read the whole article. Very informative. As to bible texts that teach it:
1 Cor 4:6
Luke 1:1-4
Matthew 4:1-11
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Luke 10:26
Matthew 12:3,5, 21:42

But I'm sure you knew this all already....

 

[MoreCoffee]

*sigh* I detest repeating myself. So I will use a quote from yet another source, and one who is well known as a scholar on the canon.
Scripture Alone by Michael Kruger | Reformed Theology Articles at Ligonier.org
I highly recommend you read the whole article. Very informative. As to bible texts that teach it:
1 Cor 4:6
Luke 1:1-4
Matthew 4:1-11
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Luke 10:26
Matthew 12:3,5, 21:42

But I'm sure you knew this all already....

Seems to me that you're repeating "Michael Kruger" not yourself.

It isn't as if I have never read works about sola scriptura from Baptists, Presbyterians, or other denominations. I can assure you that I have. The works I most remember are:

• The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison
• "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God by J. I. Packer
• Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible's Origin, Reliability, and Meaning by Wayne Grudem, and Thomas R. Schre C. John Collins, C. John Collins and Thomas R. Schreiner

Also a number of systematic theologies including those by:

• Louis Berkhof
• CHARLES HODGE
• Robert L. Dabney
• Thomas C. Oden
• Augustus Hopkins Strong

So it is not for lack of information that I asked what I asked in this thread. I didn't ask people to tell me what somebody else says. I asked for their denominational standard's definition, the scriptures used to support it, and their own understanding of its meaning.

You are welcome to contribute if you want to.

 

[Metal Minister]

Seems to me that you're repeating "Michael Kruger" not yourself.

Seems to me you aren't actually paying attention. Note that I said because I detest repeating myself, I would use his words, quoted them in a quote box, and then linked you to where I got them!

*sigh* I detest repeating myself. So I will use a quote from yet another source, and one who is well known as a scholar on the canon.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-alone/

I highly recommend you read the whole article. Very informative. As to bible texts that teach it:
1 Cor 4:6
Luke 1:1-4
Matthew 4:1-11
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Luke 10:26
Matthew 12:3,5, 21:42

But I'm sure you knew this all already....

If you refuse to even see this, I can't see how your op and questions are genuine. It appears you may be being deliberately obtuse. If this is the case I see little reason to address the remainder of your post.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... I see little reason to address the remainder of your post.

Do as you think best.

 

[Rick Otto]

I asked for their denominational standard's definition, the scriptures used to support it, and their own understanding of its meaning.

To what end?

 

[barryatlake]

I asked for their denominational standard's definition, the scriptures used to support it, and their own understanding of its meaning.
Rick Otto, you ask: "To what end?"

Nobody has yet explained their ''denominational standard's definition "

 

[MoreCoffee]

Seems to me that you're repeating "Michael Kruger" not yourself.

It isn't as if I have never read works about sola scriptura from Baptists, Presbyterians, or other denominations. I can assure you that I have. The works I most remember are:

• The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison
• "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God by J. I. Packer
• Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible's Origin, Reliability, and Meaning by Wayne Grudem, and Thomas R. Schre C. John Collins, C. John Collins and Thomas R. Schreiner

Also a number of systematic theologies including those by:

• Louis Berkhof
• CHARLES HODGE
• Robert L. Dabney
• Thomas C. Oden
• Augustus Hopkins Strong

So it is not for lack of information that I asked what I asked in this thread. I didn't ask people to tell me what somebody else says. I asked for their denominational standard's definition, the scriptures used to support it, and their own understanding of its meaning.

You are welcome to contribute if you want to.

To what end?

I asked for their denominational standard's definition, the scriptures used to support it, and their own understanding of its meaning.
Rick Otto, you ask: "To what end?"

Nobody has yet explained their ''denominational standard's definition "

You both responded to the part of my post shown in bold.

Rick Otto, I asked because I was curious to know what different churches taught and why as well as what GT members of those churches understand to be the meaning of the denominational standard. Aside from curiosity and a desire to discuss there was nothing else motivating me.

barryatlake, one has but many have not. For a while the thread was more of less hijacked by repeated references and quotes of post #11. I hope that is past now. I'd like to see what people think about their denominational standard's approach to sola sriptura and the doctrine scripture. It's such a pivotal point in GT discussions that it seems worthwhile defining it and explaining what the definition means and why it is believed.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I asked for their denominational standard's definition, the scriptures used to support it, and their own understanding of its meaning.
Rick Otto, you ask: "To what end?"

Nobody has yet explained their ''denominational standard's definition "

See post # 11.

And to date, NOT ONE Protestant - from ANY denomination - has disagreed with it. Not one, not ever. Not at CF, not anywhere. Yes, some have ADDED explanations as to why Scripture is embraced (as I did in post # 11), some have ADDED how best to interpret Scripture in such, but adding explanations is not changing the definition. I have zero evidence that ANY Protestant denomination has a DIFFERENT definition than the standard, historic, official, formal, 1577 definition given in post #11.

Of course, as mandated, Catholics and Mormons must disagree. And if you read post #11, the reason for that is clearly documented.






.

 

[LostMarbels]

To discredit sola scriptura for me, I would first have to change my fundamental beliefs that:

1. The word of God is from the beginning, and was with God at creation.

(Joh 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2. Jesus is the word of God made flesh that dwelt amongst man.

(Joh 1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

3. The word of God is an immutable fact, and is unchanging.

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.


You see... to me the word of God is more than a Bible or dogmatic church speak. It is part of my God, and it is our Christ in the flesh. I confess that Jesus is the one and only true God, and he is the word of God manifest in the flesh. So since Jesus is the only way, there can only be one word of God. And God is fully capable of revealing himself without outside help.

There are so many parallels to my belief. We see in James that there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning in God. So with the word of God being part of God and Jesus being the physical manifestation of the word; Gods word is also without variableness, neither shadow of turning. This gives me a measurable, testable constant to apply variables to. If the variables do not line up with the immutable word of God, then it is false.

It is very easy to see that Gods word is, and always will be unchanged. If it has been edited, or changed in any way, it is not God's word.

This bing said, Gods word alone is capable of saving man kind, and reveling himself to us. The word of God proved this at Golgotha. I do not need dogma, edicts, or religion to understand the word of God. I can ask Jesus who is the word to explain himself, and reveal truths in the holy spirit.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The topic title uses the present tense "defining" to indicate that it may be a work in progress. Clearly there is some sort of core definition present but thus far not many have discussed the elements in it. For example these topics are yet to be properly examined:

• What is (what constitutes) holy scripture and why is it what it is?
• What is doctrine?
• What is authority in matters of religion?
• What is one's hermeneutic for holy scripture?
• What role does interpretation play?

Some may object that these questions do not match their idea of this thread's topic but I remind readers that the original post explicitly asks for such issues to be presented and justified.

See post #11.


I'm not sure WHY you seem so obsessed with evading the topic and constantly, perpetually changing it to OTHER things in order to keep the discussion off topic - but you sure are (and some other Catholics are coming to your aid in doing this). The definition was given. And explained. Over and over and over and over and over. As it has been done countless times at CF over the past 10 years (and I'm confident long before that).

The hijacks you list here are all valid topics, but discussing them here is a rule violation - and simply documents your PERSISTENCE in evading, avoiding, circumventing the topic here. If you want to discuss DIFFERENT topics such as why the individual RC Denomination has a UNIQUE Bible that NO OTHER has EVER accepted - start a thread on that, entitled it: "Why Does NO Church, Denomination, Sect or Cult Share the UNIQUE, CURRENT RCC Bible - Thus Showing the RC Denomination is seen as Having Zero Authority on This?" I'll post in it. But don't hijack this thread (it's a rule violation), and don't try to tempt others to violate the rules (also a rule violation).





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

See post #11.

I saw it before. Are you going to do this again? You do know that both post 11 and the constant references to it are not answering the original post, right?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You do know that both post 11 are not answering the original post, right?

It certainly does. You've just been very persistent in evading it.




.

 

[tadoflamb]

That's because the practice concerns NORMING, not hermeneutics.

Unless you're a Lutheran norming dogma, sola scriptura is not for you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I gave up on post #11 after it was repeated for the fourth time. It must be up around two dozen times by now. It's like white noise ....

 

[Albion]

Unless you're a Lutheran norming dogma, sola scriptura is not for you.

What's "for me" is whatever God has revealed as his will and intentions for mankind. This isn't some kind of inter-denominational contest.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Unless you're a Lutheran norming dogma, sola scriptura is not for you.

Lutherans are not the only ones to embrace this practice, as one would note, and as the opening poster knows (or this would be in the Lutheran forum).

Yes, the practice of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas (aka "Sola Scriptura") IS the practice of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas - that's true.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I gave up on post #11

Obviously. This is why Catholics and Mormons CONSTANTLY post strawmen, misconceptions, silly stuff.... and why they keep asking unrelated questions.... and why they keep so persistently diverting things into other subjects. You actually ASKED for the definition - then reveal (and admit) you just ignore it, evade it, circumvent it, divert from it.






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm Sola Scriptura like the Reformers were but nothing like some Christians who don't go to church and interpert the bible in their own weird way which creates heresy.

That's a fair distinction and would put myself in that same category.

Does this definition include the Canon that was in use in 1577?

Thanks for your contributions.

yogosans14, how would you define sola scriptura?

Tigger45, How do you define it?

Michael Collum, What canon was in use in 1577?

 

[MoreCoffee]

From the Belgic Confession, Article 7:

"The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, to be the only rule of faith.

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house."

Thanks for your denomination's statement on scripture. Can you tell me what passages of scripture are used to back it and, if you are willing, will you tell me what you understand to be its meaning?

 

[tadoflamb]

What's "for me" is whatever God has revealed as his will and intentions for mankind. This isn't some kind of inter-denominational contest.

I'm sorry, but when the authors of the official, formal, historical, verbatim, confessional seventeen word definition of sola scriptura penned the words 'among us', I hardly expect that they sought to include neither Anglicans nor the freethinkers of the 21st century.


Besides, how much dogma are you norming? I suspect none.