Question about "sola scriptura"

[Wolf_Says]

those books were rejected by orthodox jews long before luther was even alive. they were included in the septuigent as important historical documents, not as inspired scripture.

So therefore by your words, only a few books are inspired scripture because.....? They were included in the Septuagint, which was considered sacred scripture and IS the sacred scripture used to build the OT of the Holy Bible, which means they too are sacred scripture.

Do you know when the hebrew Bible actually came to be and was declared scripture once and for all? I'll answer that for you, it was at the Council of Jamnia in the late 1st century (roughly 80-90 AD), which is after Jesus had died.

Do you know when the Septuagint was written? I'll answer that as well, it was completed in the 130s BC when they were forced by the Greek King of Egypt to translate the hebrew sacred scriptures at the time.

It is rather interesting that, the Septuagint which came before the finalized Hebrew Bible, contains to Apocrypha, while the finalized Hebrew Bible does not. 72 Hebrew Scholars worked on translating the Septuagint.

Interesting what history can teach you.

 

[Soyeong]

I have a question about the definition of sola scriptura.

Am I not a "sola scriptura -Christian" if I believe, that to understand the will of God and to get to know the truth, the text in the Bible in itself isn't sufficient, but that one must be guided by the Holy Spirit to understand what the Bible text actually says?

I just watched a debate between a Protestant and a Catholic on the subject of sola scriptura. I was surprised that neither one of them claimed that God's Spirit is the one who is above the written Bible text – and not that the Bible text is the only authority (the view of the protestant debater) nor that the Church doctrine and tradition have the same authority as the Bible text (the view of the Catholic debater)!

It can be seen clearly that if someone who isn't born again from above, from the Spirit of God, reads the Bible s/he most definately doesn't understand the core message: the redemption from sin and death in the Son, Jesus Christ.

I also remember from the time before I became a Christian myself that I didn't understand the Bible at all, even though I read it every now and then (because the text was aesthetically and emotionally appealing on many parts). But when I became a Christian, I immediately began to see God's message.

So if I believe like this am I or am I not "sola scriptura"?

If someone claims to have something revealed to them by the Spirit, how do you know whether to believe them? For that matter, how do you know whether something that was revealed to you was revealed to you by the Spirit?

The example that we have in Acts 17:11 was not one where the Bereans took everything Paul said at face value, but rather they were praised because they diligently tested everything Paul said against OT Scriptures to see if it was true. The NT authors quoted or alluded to OT Scriptures thousands of times to show that it supported that what they said was true and to show that they didn't deviate from it, so a big indicator that someone is not being lead by the Spirit is if they teach against living by the truth of what is written in OT Scriptures. The Spirit will teach us how to correctly understand God's Word, but will never teach us against living according to it, so God's Word is the standard by which we can test the spirits (1 John 4:1) as well as the teachings of others.

 

[dms1972]

Who first used this term - 'sola scriptura', (i am aware its one of the five Solas of the Reformation, but was it used by any reformers, or is it a term that later came to be used to sum up the reformers position?). But when did this term first be used, what were they talking about and what did they mean?

 

[JohannaSK]

Jesus only started one Church.

The questions I listed are keys to salvation. Don't you think he wants us to know the truth about baptism, faith/works, communion, morality, etc.?

I think he does, and I think that is why he started a single Church and gave his Church leaders. To these leaders he gave his authority to bind and loose(ie. make rules) and to forgive sins.

Does your Church forgive sins?

By reading the Bible in the light of the gospel truth (the creation, the fall and the redemption in the Son, Jesus Christ) one can understand all that is necessary. So yes, one needs the Bible and the Bible is the word of God.

There are also Bible teachers and pastors who can help you. We created human beings are all fallen and we can make mistakes. Only God is perfect and never makes a mistake.

My Church most definately declares the forgiveness of sins – that's the core thing of the gospel truth!

 

[JoeP222w]

To the OP: Sola Scriptura is often wrongly defined, so a correct definition for Sola Scriptura is essential:

From James R. White website (Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? - Vintage - Alpha and Omega Ministries):

[Begin Quote]
Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

[End Quote]

Am I not a "sola scriptura -Christian" if I believe, that to understand the will of God and to get to know the truth, the text in the Bible in itself isn't sufficient, but that one must be guided by the Holy Spirit to understand what the Bible text actually says?

That is not an accurate definition of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does teach that the Bible is God breathed and thus is sufficient and the sole infallible rule of faith. And being God breathed, the Holy Spirit (since He is God) is very much an essential part of revelation. It would be a false dichotomy to separate the Holy Spirit out from the understanding of scripture.

 

[JoeP222w]

The beauty of Sola Scriptura is that it means different things to everybody. Nobody can agree on the definition of the term so it means anything you want.

Not true. God's word is not arbitrary or relativistic. Nor does Sola Scriptura claim such a thing.

 

[JoeP222w]

The wild and varying opinions about Sola Scriptura must mean it isn't of God.

Or that man, in his sinful nature, twists and suppresses the truth of God.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yeah, say that in a Protestant church and see how far you get with it. You'll be laughed out the door, and rightfully so.

Will I? Interesting. And how will those Protestants respond, do you suppose, when I point out the doctrinal differences existing between them and another Protestant denomination just up the street from their own congregation? After all, both groups claim to derive their doctrines from Sacred Scripture. How, then, could they have reached such different conclusions? This alone casts doubt upon the efficacy of Sola Scriptura.

As to the definition itself, here again we find interpretive difficulties. The Churches of Christ believe something must be affirmatively cited in Sacred Scripture in order to be permissible belief, doctrine or practice. They say they're Sola Scriptura.

Many Southern Baptist pastors, by contrast, believe that beliefs, doctrines or practices must harmonize with Sacred Scripture. Something need not be explicitly permitted in the scriptures. It simply must "fit" with scripture. They also claim to be Sola Scriptura.

I've been to so-called non-denominational congregations where the lead pastor's view is beliefs, doctrines or practices must not be explicitly forbidden by Sacred Scripture. As long as it isn't forbidden, it is permissible. You guessed it, they too are Sola Scriptura.

All these groups claim to abide by Sola Scriptura. And yet manifestly they have definitions of what that means so different as to be incompatible. They can't all be right. Things that are different are not the same. So which one (if any) has the "correct" definition of Sola Scriptura?

 

[JohannaSK]

To the OP: Sola Scriptura is often wrongly defined, so a correct definition for Sola Scriptura is essential:

From James R. White website (Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? - Vintage - Alpha and Omega Ministries):

[Begin Quote]
Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

[End Quote]





That is not an accurate definition of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does teach that the Bible is God breathed and thus is sufficient and the sole infallible rule of faith. And being God breathed, the Holy Spirit (since He is God) is very much an essential part of revelation. It would be a false dichotomy to separate the Holy Spirit out from the understanding of scripture.

Thank you for this. I wasn't clear about the definition.

 

[Thursday]

By reading the Bible in the light of the gospel truth (the creation, the fall and the redemption in the Son, Jesus Christ) one can understand all that is necessary.

I didn't ask if your church declares forgiveness of sins, I asked if your church forgives sins.

Some bible believers say that baptism is unnecessary. Some say that it is necessary for salvation.

Some bible believers say that works must be part of our salvation, others say that belief alone is enough.

These are crucial issues. Are those bible believers who disagree with you on this out of touch with the Holy Spirit?

 

[ToBeLoved]

1 Cor 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

What scripture is Paul referencing here?

I just got done looking at this verse for a post in the Messianic area.

This was my reply

***
The overall logic is this:

In a city a little way from Corinth there was a cult that baptized the dead in their cult. And you will notice that the verse that we are refering to was 1 Corinthians, so this was written to the church in Corinth.

Paul was speaking of this cults heathen practice of baptizing the dead, which is why Paul used "they" (talking about the cult) and not "we" which he would have use to talk to the church.

Paul was using this example, which the people of Corinth would be very familiar with because they lived close to it, I will research which city it was that the cult was in and get back to you (I didn't document it when I researched it, so I don't have my notes on paper to look at so I will have to relook up the location for you). I will post the information soon as i can.

So Paul was using this cult as an example because it was close to Corinth and "they" followed this practice.

A few verses before, Paul was talking about Jesus death and ressurrection. In NO WAY did he want the Corinth church to think Jesus death was ANYTHING like the pagan cult practice. I believe that this was the talk of the people in Corinth that Jesus death may be like the cult. PAUL WAS SAYING "NO WAY".
**

It is not as thorough as the post I posted there, but ask any questions if you do not understand.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Actually, in that verse Jesus does not. It isn't until later that Jesus gives the rest of the apostles that power, however only Peter has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and Peter is the rock in which Jesus shall build his church, as in the language that Jesus spoke (Aramaic) Peter is "kepha" which directly translates to "rock". So Jesus is literally saying "I shall call you Kepha, and on this kepha I shall build my Church."

Fun Aramaic note: It was likely a pun between כיפה ("rock") with אבנה (also "rock") and the verb בני ("to build").

"You are Kefa כיפה and upon this rock אבנה /əvna/ I will build אבני /əvne/ my Church."

In this case, אבנה /əvna/ is a pun between "rock" and "I will build". In even older orthography, it would be spelled the same.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Not true. God's word is not arbitrary or relativistic. Nor does Sola Scriptura claim such a thing.

Sola Scriptura doesn't have to "claim" anything. People who abide by it obviously use different definitions. I find it interesting that the people who believe in Sola Scriptura attempt to cite God's character as a bizarre appeal to authority in this thread. You're at least the second to do so.

Sola Scriptura was invented by men to provide a competing authority to the Magisterium, to tradition and to other forms of Church authority. What I have been talking around in this thread is my firm belief that Sola Scriptura is an incomprehensible mess of a man-made doctrine and it's varying definitions are evidence of that.

Or that man, in his sinful nature, twists and suppresses the truth of God.

Or, perhaps, that Sola Scriptura has no reasonable basis in fact. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find a credible example of someone expressing a belief in Sola Scriptura before relatively recently.

More broadly though, Sola Scriptura places the burden of scholarship upon the individual. Merely on its face this is difficult to believe because, put simply, the Bell Curve is a very real thing. People of average and below average intelligence cannot be reasonably expected to be scholars on doctrinal, theological and other matters.

Now the Bell Curve poses no problem for me as a Catholic. I washed with the same baptism as the guy in the pew next to me (no matter his IQ level). I attend the same Mass. I receive by the same communion. But my talents are different from his so my below average intelligence co-religionist and I can still experience unity while using our talents in different ways.

But in a Sola Scriptura context, someone of below average intelligence is at a clear and distinct disadvantage in matters of scriptural interpretation and study. Barring divine intervention (which is possible, though not plausible considering the wild inconsistency in Protestant doctrine and theology), he who is possessed of merely average or below average intelligence could easily find himself led astray on any number of crucial doctrines.

Simply put, Sola Scriptura doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[Thursday]

I just got done looking at this verse for a post in the Messianic area.

This was my reply

***
The overall logic is this:

In a city a little way from Corinth there was a cult that baptized the dead in their cult. And you will notice that the verse that we are refering to was 1 Corinthians, so this was written to the church in Corinth.

Paul was speaking of this cults heathen practice of baptizing the dead, which is why Paul used "they" (talking about the cult) and not "we" which he would have use to talk to the church.

Paul was using this example, which the people of Corinth would be very familiar with because they lived close to it, I will research which city it was that the cult was in and get back to you (I didn't document it when I researched it, so I don't have my notes on paper to look at so I will have to relook up the location for you). I will post the information soon as i can.

So Paul was using this cult as an example because it was close to Corinth and "they" followed this practice.

A few verses before, Paul was talking about Jesus death and ressurrection. In NO WAY did he want the Corinth church to think Jesus death was ANYTHING like the pagan cult practice. I believe that this was the talk of the people in Corinth that Jesus death may be like the cult. PAUL WAS SAYING "NO WAY".
**

It is not as thorough as the post I posted there, but ask any questions if you do not understand.

Wrong. It's in the book of Maccabees. Paul was referring to scripture.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I don't see why when it is true.

If the concept of SS is, that we believe in the Bible and the Bible alone is the highest authority, then why are there so many denominations with such differing ideas in regards to basic things in Christianity such as baptism and the Last Supper?

Does everyone who goes to church rely on the Holy Spirit to lead them into truth?
Many on websites such as these rely on lexicons, and reading the Greek etc

 

[com7fy8]

It can be seen clearly that if someone who isn't born again from above, from the Spirit of God, reads the Bible s/he most definately doesn't understand the core message: the redemption from sin and death in the Son, Jesus Christ.

I think how God has you doing a scripture will be so better than how you might try to get yourself to do it.

Maybe ones claiming to be "sola scriptura" are talking about only at the doctrinal level. Is the Bible enough for getting the right doctrine of salvation? This could be what makes their difference.

I also remember from the time before I became a Christian myself that I didn't understand the Bible at all, even though I read it every now and then (because the text was aesthetically and emotionally appealing on many parts). But when I became a Christian, I immediately began to see God's message.

And more and more we actually experience how God in us has us living His word. More and more, I see His love meaning, I am finding. It is not only about correct doctrine, but about how we become in His love and how He has us loving . . . with Him.

So if I believe like this am I or am I not "sola scriptura"?

I would say you are sola scriptura . . . doctrinally.

Luther's description that I read is, in fact, almost the same as the Orthodox Church would say, but we are not thought of as being sola scriptura.

I think people in different groups can be picking at words to make themselves different from each other; in case they don't care for each other, they don't want to admit they are the same or close, about something. But I'm not saying all in each group are doing this.

 

[JohannaSK]

If someone claims to have something revealed to them by the Spirit, how do you know whether to believe them? For that matter, how do you know whether something that was revealed to you was revealed to you by the Spirit?

The example that we have in Acts 17:11 was not one where the Bereans took everything Paul said at face value, but rather they were praised because they diligently tested everything Paul said against OT Scriptures to see if it was true. The NT authors quoted or alluded to OT Scriptures thousands of times to show that it supported that what they said was true and to show that they didn't deviate from it, so a big indicator that someone is not being lead by the Spirit is if they teach against living by the truth of what is written in OT Scriptures. The Spirit will teach us how to correctly understand God's Word, but will never teach us against living according to it, so God's Word is the standard by which we can test the spirits (1 John 4:1) as well as the teachings of others.

Soyeong, I absolutely believe the Bible to be the word of God. If someone claims that they've had a revelation from the Holy Spirit, but it's in contradiction with what's said in the Bible read in the light of the gospel truth, then it can be safely ruled that is wasn't from the Holy Spirit.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Wrong. It's in the book of Maccabees. Paul was referring to scripture.

Which verse in Maccabees do you think it points to? Wondering why you wouldn't have included the verse.

Also, you should qualify exactly what you think I have gotten incorrect and then how you feel your verse shows an error. I don't have any idea what you are talking about, this is like a riddle with no words.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Actually, in that verse Jesus does not. It isn't until later that Jesus gives the rest of the apostles that power, however only Peter has the keys to the kingdom of heaven,

You are contridicting yourself.

You say in one phrase it isn't until later that Jesus gives the rest of the apostles that power, but then say only Peter has the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

So please clarify because you are contridicting your own words.

 

[Soyeong]

Soyeong, I absolutely believe the Bible to be the word of God. If someone claims that they've had a revelation from the Holy Spirit, but it's in contradiction with what's said in the Bible read in the light of the gospel truth, then it can be safely ruled that is wasn't from the Holy Spirit.

Then I think you are in agreement with sola scriptura, though it runs deeper than that because the OT is how we know that the NT is true.