• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is there a Bible verse that affirms Sola Scriptura?

Not David

Antiochian Orthodox
Apr 6, 2018
7,393
5,278
26
USA
✟243,137.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Not all forms of Protestantism are committed to denigration of tradition, even if we don't regard those traditions as being necessarily infallible, they form an important context for understanding the Scriptures. After all, Christianity is a religion about Christ, ultimately, not biblical exegesis.

The Anglican or Lutheran traditions tend to have a higher view of the early church and tradition. Nikolai Grundtvig, a Lutheran bishop and theologian, in particular, comes to mind as an example of this high view of tradition and the early Church. Grundtvig grounded Christian faith within the Church as a continuous, historical community that confessed a common creed. Grundtvig was writing in the 18th and 19th centuries when higher criticism was starting to raise questions about the Bible.
I was really interested in Lutheranism and Anglicanism for their high regard of Church History and Tradition; however inside those institutions there are a lot of conflict about what Scripture means. Even more, not all of them consider the Bible as infallible which I think it's ironic for denominations that affirm Sola Scriptura. That's why I feel Apostolic Churches have better claims.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,523
20,804
Orlando, Florida
✟1,521,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I was really interested in Lutheranism and Anglicanism for their high regard of Church History and Tradition; however inside those institutions there are a lot of conflict about what Scripture means.

You're going to find that same conflict in any Christian tradition, or even any religious tradition in general.

In Evangelical Lutheranism we do regard the Bible as infallible when it is used to proclaim the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. I see no confusion here. However, we do not believe the Bible is an infallible guide to science, history, or all aspects of human conduct. We recognize a place for secular learning as a legitimate authority in terms of human conduct in the world, coram homnibus. But when it comes to our relationship to God, the Gospel is the infallible truth about humanity coram deo, before God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,397
11,933
Georgia
✟1,099,996.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Isn't Jesus considered "The Word of God" (Logos)?


Mark 7:6-13 Jesus declines to simply "quote himself"

Same thing in Luke 24:27 " 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,397
11,933
Georgia
✟1,099,996.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I was really interested in Lutheranism and Anglicanism for their high regard of Church History and Tradition; however inside those institutions there are a lot of conflict about what Scripture means. Even more, not all of them consider the Bible as infallible which I think it's ironic for denominations that affirm Sola Scriptura. That's why I feel Apostolic Churches have better claims.

All of which differ with each other. The Lutheran church is a great example of Catholic scholars "differing" with other Catholic Scholars ---> new denomination

The only objective standard is the actual Word of God.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,397
11,933
Georgia
✟1,099,996.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You're going to find that same conflict in any Christian tradition, or even any religious tradition in general.

In Evangelical Lutheranism we do regard the Bible as infallible when it is used to proclaim the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. I see no confusion here. However, we do not believe the Bible is an infallible guide to science, history, or all aspects of human conduct. We recognize a place for secular learning as a legitimate authority in terms of human conduct in the world, coram homnibus. But when it comes to our relationship to God, the Gospel is the infallible truth about humanity coram deo, before God.

God created all of nature. Is it then true that God has nothing accurate to say about the physical world??

Science claims the universe "came out of nothing - mysteriously" using that logic how does the scientist know for certain that "a universe will not pop out of the test tube" while doing an experiment where the starting conditions are "wayy more than nothing"??
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvangAlived
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,523
20,804
Orlando, Florida
✟1,521,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
God created all of nature. Is it then true that God has nothing accurate to say about the physical world??

Of course not, but what God has to say about nature is revealed to scientists, not just Christians.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,046
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟319,632.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Just because the words 'Scripture Alone' is not found in the Bible. Does not negate the concept of its teaching. For example, the word 'Trinity' is nowhere found in Scripture. But the concept of the 'Trinity' is found in Scripture.

:) That is right - it was through Tradition handed down via the councils that we accept the 'Trinity' as a tenet of our faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,535
2,689
✟1,051,693.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I absolutely agree. But first we have to know what to study!

That's the problem we are looking at here--i.e. what is our authority--not how we handle it.

And even if we chose something else--Holy Tradition, so-called, or Tea leaves, or Astrology--we would STILL have the possibility of disagreements over how to interpret the information. Of the various churches which do go by Tradition instead of Sola Scriptura, NOT ONE OF THEM has the same doctrines (thanks to that Tradition) as the rest of them! So what kind of recommendation is that?



And yet that is what is included within Holy Tradition--council decisions, Papal decrees and etc.


Welcome aboard! :)

What Church doesn't use some tradition to form their teachings? I know none. Again to understand the Bible we need to know about the early Church, not later traditions.

If you believe we would only have one Church if everyone believed in Sola Scriptura and no church followed traditions, I believe you are wrong. It may have been a even greater number of different churches and denominations. Tradition is necessary, and something helpful and good, but we have to go to early sources.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What Church doesn't use some tradition to form their teachings? I know none.

That's a common mistake. It isn't that churches don't have customs or traditions, ways of looking at things that characterize that church and long have done so.

That isn't even what we have been talking about here.

The topic is Sola Scriptura, and by implication, its opposite, which the churches that follow that other system call Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition. It is not just traditions, which is what you were referring to, but a theory about a second divine revelation (second to the Bible) which operates through the opinions of the members of the church.

We reject the idea that that other theory is A) true or B) the equal of Holy Scripture.

Again to understand the Bible we need to know about the early Church, not later traditions.
Certainly. To know history isn't what Holy Tradition is all about, however. And to know about the early Church is not contrary to Sola Scripture.

If you believe we would only have one Church if everyone believed in Sola Scriptura and no church followed traditions, I believe you are wrong.
Thankfully, I don't. What's more, I have no idea where that line of thought might have come from. It has nothing to do with what we have been discussing.

Tradition is necessary, and something helpful and good, but we have to go to early sources.
Well, that statement might be worth exploring, but it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura or, for that matter, the alternate approach to defining doctrine which is used by the Catholic churches.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,397
11,933
Georgia
✟1,099,996.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Of course not, but what God has to say about nature is revealed to scientists, not just Christians.

God is under no such obligation to "be sure that an atheist scientist has just as much truth about God's work in creation - as the Christian does". But it makes for an interesting bit of creative writing I suppose.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟148,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is more of a Reformed perspective historically. Lutherans have never regarded the Scriptures as being necessarily exhaustive in terms of being a guide to conduct of life. This is not a liberal or conservative Lutheran perspective, it is shared by all Lutherans, as demonstrated by Pr. Jonathan Fisk:
I don't know if you are attempting to refute what I wrote, but I stand by my words regardless of others thoughts on Sola Scriptura. The importance of Sola Scriptura is that it is the ONLY source of incontrovertible truth. It is what distinguishes it from traditions that do have their place in the church.
No, not at all. Christ is the foundation of the Church. The Bible testifies to Christ.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Where have I read these words? Jesus is the Word. The Bible is a collection of God's word. It is more than "testifies to Christ". You quible over Jesus being different than his words as recorded in scripture. To us living in this day, the Bible is the closest we have to being taught by Jesus. In effect the two are now the same, as far as providing the true knowledge of God and being a foundation of what we believe.
This rests on the assumed necessity of a modernist epistemology based on perceived certainty. There are other possible approaches to the Christian faith besides grounding it in rationalism. It is not by reason that we believe, but the Holy Spirit.
If you think there is no significance between following one that sometimes tells the truth and one that always tells the truth, than you will be prone to be led astray.
 
Upvote 0

EvangAlived

WakeUpSleepyHead
Aug 22, 2018
276
85
City
Visit site
✟5,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God created all of nature. Is it then true that God has nothing accurate to say about the physical world??

Science claims the universe "came out of nothing - mysteriously" using that logic how does the scientist know for certain that "a universe will not pop out of the test tube" while doing an experiment where the starting conditions are "wayy more than nothing"??
I am so borrowing that bro.
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,535
2,689
✟1,051,693.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's a common mistake. It isn't that churches don't have customs or traditions, ways of looking at things that characterize that church and long have done so.

That isn't even what we have been talking about here.

The topic is Sola Scriptura, and by implication, its opposite, which the churches that follow that other system call Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition. It is not just traditions, which is what you were referring to, but a theory about a second divine revelation (second to the Bible) which operates through the opinions of the members of the church.

We reject the idea that that other theory is A) true or B) the equal of Holy Scripture.


Certainly. To know history isn't what Holy Tradition is all about, however. And to know about the early Church is not contrary to Sola Scripture.


Thankfully, I don't. What's more, I have no idea where that line of thought might have come from. It has nothing to do with what we have been discussing.


Well, that statement might be worth exploring, but it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura or, for that matter, the alternate approach to defining doctrine which is used by the Catholic churches.

Is this thread only about Catholic traditions vs Sola Scriptura? In that case I don't have much to say.

You can't use tradition to get theology that isn't in the Bible. But tradition of the early Church helps us interpret the Bible, and have the right teachings.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Is this thread only about Catholic traditions vs Sola Scriptura? In that case I don't have much to say.
Its not about traditions at all. Its about Sola Scriptura and the OTHER system--not Sola Scriptura/Scripture Alone--that all the Catholic type churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern, Old Catholic, etc.) use instead.

They call theirs Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition, but they might as well have called it Ultra Insightful Inspirations because it is only remotely connected to actual traditions (and that's assuming that you believe that church traditions should carry the same weight as the word of God in the Bible when the church determines doctrine anyway).

Unfortunately, many people looking at a thread like this one cannot get beyond thinking that "the tried and true," "what has been proven to be workable over the centuries" etc. ought to be valued...or something like that. No doubt it should be, but it isn't what Holy Tradition, AKA Tradition, means.

But tradition of the early Church helps us interpret the Bible, and have the right teachings.
...which in no way conflicts with or contradicts Sola Scriptura.
 
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,535
2,689
✟1,051,693.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Its not about traditions at all. Its about Sola Scriptura and the OTHER system--not Sola Scriptura/Scripture Alone--that all the Catholic type churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern, Old Catholic, etc.) use instead.

They call theirs Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition, but they might as well have called it Ultra Insightful Inspirations because it is only remotely connected to actual traditions (and that's assuming that you believe that church traditions should carry the same weight as the word of God in the Bible when the church determines doctrine anyway).

Unfortunately, many people looking at a thread like this one cannot get beyond thinking that "the tried and true," "what has been proven to be workable over the centuries" etc. ought to be valued...or something like that. No doubt it should be, but it isn't what Holy Tradition, AKA Tradition, means.


...which in no way conflicts with or contradicts Sola Scriptura.

Ok, thank you!

Christ love,
P
 
Upvote 0

Theo Book

Active Member
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
216
76
91
Central Florida
✟104,258.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If not, is then Sola Scriptura fake?

When you consider the simple fact that most of the denominations are a result of leaving the scriptures to go outside to find words to say what you are trying to get someone to understand, I think it would be prudent to allow the scriptures to cover any issues that can possibly arise.

Many are the false doctrines that are developed by sometimes by well meaning instructors who lack the knowledge to adequately process the problem under consideration, so they look elsewhere for synonyms or parallel stories.

For example, the doctrine of "Original sin" which proclaims all sin, cannot not sin, and are doomed to Hell.

It is so far beneath contempt I am forced to wonder if it was Men who came up with it, or the Devil Himself, disguised as a bible class teacher.

First of all, the doctrine begins with the error that the Man Adam was the first sinner. Then a doctrine was developed about the perpetual virginity of Mary, and saying she was born without sin, so when Jesus was begotten, he would be the only man not tainted with original sin.

Problem with all of that begins with the fact "It ain't scripture."

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Eve took the first bite of forbidden fruit, and took and gave to Adam
who joined her in the rebellion against God.

Adam had lived for a time as the only Human in the world. God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Why?
Because Adam had seen all the animals when he named them, and I do not believe it was done in a day. I believe he saw the animals in a daily life of activity, possibly even to seeing them mating, and pondering why he was the only animal without a navel.

When God created Eve, and woke Adam from the deep sleep that made it possible, Adam fell in total love with the only perfect female of the time. (There were no others with which to compare, get over it.)

Adam understood the law given to him by God Himself, but Eve was taught it only by her husband, as far as we know from there being no record of God speaking directly to her about the law.

And when Satan contradicted what Adam told Eve, well..... She was deceived.

I believe Adam was heartsick and despondent over the possibility of living a life alone once more, and took a chance on the mercy of God; and joined his wife in her first time of deepest trouble. In other words, He loved her without reservation. He did not say to her, "I will love you as long as you live up to my expectations." No, he loved her first of all, as the precious gift of God she truly was, and then as the mate she was created to be.

But I know Adam did not commit the first sin. I also know Adam committed the first sin, because scripture says "By one man sin entered the world." This is scriptural when you read all there is to understand about the issue.

When God created Adam, "male and female created He them, and called THEIR NAME Adam."
Genesis 5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

But as to the doctrine of original sin, it cannot explain other statements of scriptures which are ignored in order to force upon fellow men, a doctrine that will enslave their minds to obedience to a priesthood that claims to have written the bible, therefore "only they can teach what it says."

For example, "
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"

How can a person born "with a sin nature, do by nature the things of the law?" They can't. The doctrine is false.

Then we have scriptures that speak of men who saved only themselves by their righteousness - NOAH, and DANIEL, and JOB-
Ezek 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD. 15 If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts: 16 Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate.17 Or if I bring a sword upon that land, and say, Sword, go through the land; so that I cut off man and beast from it:18 Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves. 19 Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out my fury upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast: 20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

We all know that all men were saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so what then does this mean? It means Jesus Christ's sacrifice covered not only the "Sins unto death" referenced by I John 5:16-17, but also the sins NOT UNTO DEATH.
16 "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."

All righteous people commit sins that are in the category of "Sins not unto death"
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

As for the scriptures being sufficient by themselves -
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,397
11,933
Georgia
✟1,099,996.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Is this thread only about Catholic traditions vs Sola Scriptura? In that case I don't have much to say.

You can't use tradition to get theology that isn't in the Bible. But tradition of the early Church helps us interpret the Bible, and have the right teachings.

What doctrine/tradition today could not be tested by the Bible sans all-the-creative-writers of the centuries after the Bible was complete?

What doctrine/tradition would come up "false" when tested by the Bible but then "true" when tested by the other non-inspired authors you are suggesting?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,397
11,933
Georgia
✟1,099,996.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
When you consider the simple fact that most of the denominations are a result of leaving the scriptures to go outside to find words to say what you are trying to get someone to understand, I think it would be prudent to allow the scriptures to cover any issues that can possibly arise.

Many are the false doctrines that are developed by sometimes by well meaning instructors who lack the knowledge to adequately process the problem under consideration, so they look elsewhere for synonyms or parallel stories.
:

Good point.

you said "Many are the false doctrines that are developed by sometimes by well meaning instructors who lack the knowledge to adequately process the problem under consideration"

I would add "lack the knowledge or the inclination to adequately review the subject based on the Bible alone"

The idea that inspired text should be held hostage to all the non-inspired theological pundits that follow it -- is not well thought out.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,397
11,933
Georgia
✟1,099,996.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
God created all of nature. Is it then true that God has nothing accurate to say about the physical world??

Science claims the universe "came out of nothing - mysteriously" using that logic how does the scientist know for certain that "a universe will not pop out of the test tube" while doing an experiment where the starting conditions are "wayy more than nothing"??

I am so borrowing that bro.

Thanks! :)

Here is another one for your consideration

The idea that inspired text should be held hostage to all the non-inspired theological pundits that follow it -- is not well thought out.
 
Upvote 0