Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
wow you deny the bible for the sake of your man made traditions!
Read again. I am denying your man made interpretation. Explain to me how the verse you cite says it is Scripture and tells us what else is. You appear to be unable to do this very simple thing.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Read again. I am denying your man made interpretation. Explain to me how the verse you cite says it is Scripture and tells us what else is. You appear to be unable to do this very simple thing.

peace,

Anglian

It says all scripture is inspired!
 
Upvote 0

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It says all scripture is inspired!
Yes, no one disputed that. Now tell us where that verse, or any others, tells us what writings are inspired and you'll have proved your point.

if you can't then your assumption about Scripture is incorrect.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, no one disputed that. Now tell us where that verse, or any others, tells us what writings are inspired and you'll have proved your point.

if you can't then your assumption about Scripture is incorrect.

peace,

Anglian

If God says all scripture is inspired I think we need to beleive God don't we? I mean 2 Tim is in our bible cause God gave it to us so we need to heed his call!
 
Upvote 0

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If God says all scripture is inspired I think we need to beleive God don't we? I mean 2 Tim is in our bible cause God gave it to us so we need to heed his call!
Again, no one denies that God says all Scripture is inspired. But where in the Bible does it tell us what is Scripture?

There was no list of contents in the original Bible. It seems you have no answer to this very simple question. Just show me the Bible brother - surely it must tell us what is supposed to be in it if you are correct?

peace,

Anglian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athanasias
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Again, no one denies that God says all Scripture is inspired. But where in the Bible does it tell us what is Scripture?

There was no list of contents in the original Bible. It seems you have no answer to this very simple question. Just show me the Bible brother - surely it must tell us what is supposed to be in it if you are correct?

peace,

Anglian
I find this argument moot. To say that the church decided what is scripture and what isn't only proves (from both p.o.v.) that what is written is accepted by all of Christianity. That doesn't make any church body/denomination etc. the higher authority of what was written. They excercised authority over what was left out not what was left in. What does that have to do with tradition vs scripture?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
the Church canonized the Bible based on its beliefs -- its Tradition! She chose those books that accurately represedented her beliefs, and those which she had been using in her worship services. it has everything to do with Tradition, for without it, what is the criteria for determining what books are to be considered Scriptural?
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
the Church canonized the Bible based on its beliefs -- its Tradition! She chose those books that accurately represedented her beliefs, and those which she had been using in her worship services. it has everything to do with Tradition, for without it, what is the criteria for determining what books are to be considered Scriptural?
I believe it was based on the authenticity of the writers as well as the content in relation to each other and OT scripture.

If the traditions have not found their source in scripture, then what is it based on? Beliefs that are based on scripture are Christianity, while those that scripture cannot back are not. Traditions that stand on their own are false.

So why not just go to the source? Scripture from more than one author (witness) plus references from both OT and NT are the most infallable. The only time that dirty doctrine comes thru is when verses are used out of context and others are deliberately ignored (which are easily discernable) Those things don't go unchallenged.
 
Upvote 0

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I believe it was based on the authenticity of the writers as well as the content in relation to each other and OT scripture.

If the traditions have not found their source in scripture, then what is it based on? Beliefs that are based on scripture are Christianity, while those that scripture cannot back are not. Traditions that stand on their own are false.

So why not just go to the source? Scripture from more than one author (witness) plus references from both OT and NT are the most infallable. The only time that dirty doctrine comes thru is when verses are used out of context and others are deliberately ignored (which are easily discernable) Those things don't go unchallenged.
An interesting idea, but I don't know of anything which supports the idea that NT Scripture had to relate to OT Scripture.

We know that as early as the 120s the 4 Gospels we receive were in circulation, but we also know they were not received everywhere. We know that about 7 of St. Paul's letters were in circulation along with Acts, but again, not everywhere.

So to say one has to 'go to the source' begs the question of who decided which of the many writings in circulation were authentically Apostolic and which were not?

As late as the 300s some books, notably James, 2 and 3 John and Revelation were still not received in many places, whilst books we do not receive, such as 1 Clement and Barnabas were.

It was the early Church in its councils which decided which books were genuine, so if we are going to the original source, stopping at the Bible does not get us all the way there.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
An interesting idea, but I don't know of anything which supports the idea that NT Scripture had to relate to OT Scripture.

We know that as early as the 120s the 4 Gospels we receive were in circulation, but we also know they were not received everywhere. We know that about 7 of St. Paul's letters were in circulation along with Acts, but again, not everywhere.

So to say one has to 'go to the source' begs the question of who decided which of the many writings in circulation were authentically Apostolic and which were not?

As late as the 300s some books, notably James, 2 and 3 John and Revelation were still not received in many places, whilst books we do not receive, such as 1 Clement and Barnabas were.

It was the early Church in its councils which decided which books were genuine, so if we are going to the original source, stopping at the Bible does not get us all the way there.

peace,

Anglian
The OT has the seeds of the NT. And we all agree that what is in the bible is authentic (ok?) The church council did not add any words or take away anything (that isn't noted) to the books that remained (which is my point)
That is the source, not the traditions built around it.
The books we have are the main source, verified by archeology.
I think it brazen for men to claim authority over what they had no say in. Just because they exercised authority to move one book in or one book out still gave them no participation in what was written in any of them!
 
Upvote 0

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Dear Maid,

I see what you are saying, but it was the Church which decided which books were and were not genuine. This means one cannot tell just from Scripture what is supposed to be in it. When you add to that that the RCC, the Orthodox and the Protestants have different OTs, one sees that tradition and scripture cannot actually be divided from each other.

How do we even know who wrote St. Mark's Gospel - it contains the name of no author, and the ending as we have it now was not there in the original. There are also additions to St. John's Gospel - the ending is certainly not by the person who wrote the rest of it; then there is the question of who wrote it. The most competent Biblical scholars are in no agreement who did, but few think it was that St. John who was the disciple of the Lord. Were it not for the tradition of the Church we would have no warrant for saying these books were Scripture. Who, for example, wrote the letter to the Hebrews? As early as the second century theologians were aware from the internal evidence that it was not St. Paul.

No one is saying the Church added anything - just that nowhere in the NT does it tell us what should be in it. That being so, Solo Scriptura can't work because it can't tell you what should be in the NT.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

New_Wineskin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2004
11,145
652
Elizabethtown , PA , usa
✟13,854.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The term "Solo Scriptura" was brought up on another thread in conjunction with "Sola Scriptura".
My own definition and view of "Solo" implies Scripture only and not going outside of what is Written while "Sola" means subscribing to both what has been Written and the Oral "traditions" of the ECFs and others that claim they were orally taught by the Apostles themselves.
So I would like to here from other Christians of all denominations on how they view the difference and I would like to quote a verse from Paul:

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brethren, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the other.

Well , neither one is even close to Scriptural - with respect to the Scriptures clearly stating the doctrines - and . with respect to the Scriptures mutually agreed upon . However , along with the question "How do we know which writings are the Scriptures ?" I ask , "How do we know that writings were not destroyed when we know that people throughout the ages ( even today ) would burn writings that contradicted their pet doctrines ?" I would also state that we have no originals of the writings that we agree were the Scriptures . Anything could have been added and/or subtracted from the writings . With no originals to verify , just about anything goes .
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dear Maid,

I see what you are saying, but it was the Church which decided which books were and were not genuine. This means one cannot tell just from Scripture what is supposed to be in it. When you add to that that the RCC, the Orthodox and the Protestants have different OTs, one sees that tradition and scripture cannot actually be divided from each other.

How do we even know who wrote St. Mark's Gospel - it contains the name of no author, and the ending as we have it now was not there in the original. There are also additions to St. John's Gospel - the ending is certainly not by the person who wrote the rest of it; then there is the question of who wrote it. The most competent Biblical scholars are in no agreement who did, but few think it was that St. John who was the disciple of the Lord. Were it not for the tradition of the Church we would have no warrant for saying these books were Scripture. Who, for example, wrote the letter to the Hebrews? As early as the second century theologians were aware from the internal evidence that it was not St. Paul.

No one is saying the Church added anything - just that nowhere in the NT does it tell us what should be in it. That being so, Solo Scriptura can't work because it can't tell you what should be in the NT.

peace,

Anglian
Sorry but to me that's no different than saying the author of a biography has as much authority over a person's historical account as the source they were obtained from because they chose what to include in their book and what to leave out. They have informed knowledge but not authority over the history of the text.


The other thing I find brazen is that the Catholics hold anything to do with the early church as their own possession. I have as much right to look into the traditions as anyone else to find the source of their thoughts (and I often do, of all traditions) in order to stand on those things that have been built. I don't, however, stagnate on them as I don't believe the body is to stagnate but to grow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: racer
Upvote 0

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sorry but to me that's no different than saying the author of a biography has as much authority over a person's historical account as the source they were obtained from because they chose what to include in their book and what to leave out. They have informed knowledge but not authority over the history of the text.
There does seem to be one major difference here. The person existed independently of the biographer; the Bible did not exist independently of the early Church.

In the second and third centuries all the books we have in our NT were in circulation; but so were many others. The earliest surviving codices have in them books we no longer receive, but which Christians then did. Some books we receive we considered doubtful, but the Church included them. If it had the inspiration to recognise the genuine Apostolic deposit, why should it lack the inspiration necessary to read it aright?



The other thing I find brazen is that the Catholics hold anything to do with the early church as their own possession. I have as much right to look into the traditions as anyone else to find the source of their thoughts (and I often do, of all traditions) in order to stand on those things that have been built. I don't, however, stagnate on them as I don't believe the body is to stagnate but to grow.
In line with the first part of my signature, I will decline to get involved in confessional disputes. I have know Orthodox say the same thing, and I have known Protestants claim virtual infallibility for their own private interpretation and to quote from St. Peter in defence of it. There seems to me no sign that any of the historic Churches are stagnating, or that the Protestant ones are.

The OP here asked whether everything had to be proven from Scripture; what I would assert is that since Scripture cannot be proven from itself, it is illogical to think that everything can be proven from Scripture. That is not to downplay its importance; it is simply to say that for the historic Churches it is a major part of tradition and best read in that tradition. There is nothing to stop anyone from doing that.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Rabbi Hillel (as recorded in the Talmud)

My point: Jesus quoting some book doesn't prove that this whole book is inspired.
Dear lighthouse_hope,

Thank you for this.:)

Yes, I think it is necessary to define what we mean by 'inspired'. To listen to some one would think they thought that the Gospels were dictated by the Holy Spirit, which is not what they say, neither is it something the early Church believed. The Gospels are certainly 'inspired', but what is it we mean by that?

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.