Scriptural Evidence for Sola Scriptura

[Siyha]

Just curious what kind of scriptural evidence there is for using only scripture.

Seems like a self defeating principle if there isn't any.

 

[ebia]

Just curious what kind of scriptural evidence there is for using only scripture.

Seems like a self defeating principle if there isn't any.

I don't think there is any. Whether it's self defeating depends on exactly what you have it say.

 

[Siyha]

Whether it's self defeating depends on exactly what you have it say.

tuche Ebia... tuche.

 

[MrPolo]

1. There is no Scripture verse stating that the only source of divine revelation is Scripture.

2. Those who argue it to be the only-source-we-must-consult violate point 1 and beg the question of whose interpretation of Scripture?

 

[BlueBelle]

Just curious what kind of scriptural evidence there is for using only scripture.

Seems like a self defeating principle if there isn't any.

I don't think there is any evidence (in Scripture itself).
I wouldn't say self defeating.
One thing we can be absolutely sure of is the Scripture is the truth. We cannot not be sure that any traditions ( or Tradition with a capital T) is.
If Tradition is positively acceptable then their would not be the big 3 that use it. Only 1 would be around.
IMO.

 

[Siyha]

Yeah... I agree with everyone in here. Was just hoping to get some good sola scriptura discussion going... but since we all seem to be on the same page....

 

[ebia]

Yeah... I agree with everyone in here. Was just hoping to get some good sola scriptura discussion going... but since we all seem to be on the same page....

Does that mean you want to drop it, or do we get into in what expressions of it might or might not be valid?

 

[Siyha]

Does that mean you want to drop it, or do we get into in what expressions of it might or might not be valid?

Well lets take a real life example. Currently, there is a big movement towards what people are calling a "Biblical Model" of church, where they try and follow only what it seems the church in Acts and the epistles did, and reject all of the stuff that came afterwards from "outside influence."

Frank Viola and George Barna have written a book called "Pagan Christianity" with this exact mindset and try to show everything we do in church right now is bad.

So then, is it appropriate to take a practice from another culture or even religion, and use it in Christian worship even though its not found in the Bible (i.e. preaching)

 

[philadiddle]

So then, is it appropriate to take a practice from another culture or even religion, and use it in Christian worship even though its not found in the Bible (i.e. preaching)

Preaching isn't in the bible? What was he doing during the sermon on the mount? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Siyha]

Preaching isn't in the bible? What was he doing during the sermon on the mount? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

There are those who would say the type of preaching done by Jesus and the apostles did not happen at church gatherings and that it perpetuates a false heirchy which elevates the preacher above those he (I'd say or he or she, but lets be honest here) is preaching to. That services should be led by the Spirit and each member given opportunity to speak as shown in some of the epistles of Paul.

Viola and Barna try to show that the form of the sermon we have now is a result of Greek influence on the early church fathers and is based off Greek rhetoric and homilees (even still called homilees in some denominations and a class on preaching is called homiletics)

The rejection of the sermon also connects to the rejection of pastors and vocational leadership.

 

[ebia]

Well lets take a real life example. Currently, there is a big movement towards what people are calling a "Biblical Model" of church, where they try and follow only what it seems the church in Acts and the epistles did, and reject all of the stuff that came afterwards from "outside influence."

Frank Viola and George Barna have written a book called "Pagan Christianity" with this exact mindset and try to show everything we do in church right now is bad.

So then, is it appropriate to take a practice from another culture or even religion, and use it in Christian worship even though its not found in the Bible (i.e. preaching)

I don't think one has any choice - the bible has almost nothing to say about what a Christian act of worship looks like.

But I would regard that as a position more extreme than most people's understanding of Sola Scriptura, ie that all things necessary for salvation are found in the bible. That does not preclude helpful things being found elsewhere provided they aren't contrary to what is in scripture.

 

[Siyha]

I don't think one has any choice - the bible has almost nothing to say about what a Christian act of worship looks like.

But I would regard that as a position more extreme than most people's understanding of Sola Scriptura, ie that all things necessary for salvation are found in the bible. That does not preclude helpful things being found elsewhere provided they aren't contrary to what is in scripture.

Would you then say, prescribe to a view similar to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that we can use reason, tradition, and experience, but through the lens of scripture?

 

[ebia]

Would you then say, prescribe to a view similar to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that we can use reason, tradition, and experience, but through the lens of scripture?

As an Anglican I'm more comfortable with Hooker's 3 legged stool, but basically yes.

 

[DeaconDean]

I do not see what the big deal is.

Many of some faiths rely more heavily on the traditions laid down by the Early Church Fathers. Its not my position, but if it does not clash with scripture...

My bible tells me:

"The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" -Psa. 19:7

Paul said this about the word:

"is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." -2 Tim. 3:16-17 (KJV)

All I need to know is contained in the scriptures. And what I cannot gleen from the scriptures, they also say:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." -Jn. 16:13 (KJV)

And He (the Holy Spirit) is still doing that.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." -1 Jn. 2:27 (KJV)

I don't see the conflict. One of the principles I was taught both in church and in seminary was:

THE RULE OF FAITH & PRACTICE.[SIZE=+1]

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.[/SIZE]

A. A. Hodge, Sola Scriptura

Source

My faith also teaches:

1. THE SCRIPTURES
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinion should be tried.

Baptist Faith and Message of 1925

Its not a popular position, but I can say that God has blessed this person by following it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[MrPolo]

One thing we can be absolutely sure of is the Scripture is the truth. We cannot not be sure that any traditions ( or Tradition with a capital T) is.

Curious why you made this claim?

 

[BlueBelle]

Curious why you made this claim?

Only because tradition is orally handed down, so we don't know if it is fully accurate through all this time. We see glimpses of it written down through the earlier ECFs becoming more apparent with the later ones. None of which is inspired by God.

There is a problem with tradition, not only its accuracy being known to us through the EFCs but the real problem is which tradition, is correct, if any, is which tradition is correct.

Just concentrating on the two large churches that claim to be the true church with the true tradition, even though you both same similar traditions, there are still differences.
One tradition is in error.

You both claim no error with tradition. One of you is wrong, if we limit it between the two of you, which we have the OO claiming the same.
We have scripture that is inspired. We can be sure of its accuracy.
The EO and CC say we get the canon from tradition.
Just with that only since the canons are different, there is a problem of which tradition to trust.

MrPolo fyi I am not fully against having tradition being part of faith. Teachings being handed down orally that is not recorded or explained fully in scripture. For example,
Act 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
Not written in the gospels, and even though part of inspired scripture, it is an example of a teaching that was recorded in the gospels.

How much tradition is correct, and which set of tradition, that is why I said that only be absolutely sure with scripture

 

[MrPolo]

Only because tradition is orally handed down, so we don't know if it is fully accurate through all this time. We see glimpses of it written down through the earlier ECFs becoming more apparent with the later ones. None of which is inspired by God.

I still do not know why you state that writing ensures full accuracy, but not oral and practical transmission, because if God is behind both, then they are both accurate. There are varying versions of Scripture as well, differences in manuscripts. Scripture itself in the New Testament was not written for at least 17-57 years or so after Christ's death, so a lot of what was written later was also done so via the oral tradition of the first decades. Same goes for varying versions of the Old Testament, as well as evidence of rewritings, Isaiah not all written by Isaiah, etc... And of course there is the issue of identifying the books of Scripture. In order to accept them as fully accurate, one must accept the Tradition that identified them as fully accurate, since Scripture does not tell us which books should be in the Bible.

Those are the reasons why I was puzzled why you thought writing was automatically safe but the unwritten is automatically not. If you still wish to assert this, we can still be friends though. Don't get me wrong.

 

[Siyha]

As an Anglican I'm more comfortable with Hooker's 3 legged stool, but basically yes.

I would argue the Wesleyan Quad is essentially the same as Hooker's 3 legged stool, its just the term quadrilateral that throws people off and makes them think the 4 parts are supposed to be equal.

 

[Siyha]

I still do not know why you state that writing ensures full accuracy, but not oral and practical transmission, because if God is behind both, then they are both accurate. There are varying versions of Scripture as well, differences in manuscripts. Scripture itself in the New Testament was not written for at least 17-57 years or so after Christ's death, so a lot of what was written later was also done so via the oral tradition of the first decades. Same goes for varying versions of the Old Testament, as well as evidence of rewritings, Isaiah not all written by Isaiah, etc... And of course there is the issue of identifying the books of Scripture. In order to accept them as fully accurate, one must accept the Tradition that identified them as fully accurate, since Scripture does not tell us which books should be in the Bible.

Those are the reasons why I was puzzled why you thought writing was automatically safe but the unwritten is automatically not. If you still wish to assert this, we can still be friends though. Don't get me wrong.

In addition to this, most of the scripture itself is derived from oral traditions.

 

[ebia]

I would argue the Wesleyan Quad is essentially the same as Hooker's 3 legged stool, its just the term quadrilateral that throws people off and makes them think the 4 parts are supposed to be equal.

You have a similar problem with the 3, but yes they are very similar. (As a maths teacher I wouldn't have read 'quadrilateral' as square or rhombus, but that's just me).