Sola Scriptura: Are the Scriptures Sufficient as a Rule of Faith?

[LoveGodsWord]

1. I've read the Bible.
2. The Bible doesn't claim to be the Sole source of Christian faith.
3. The Bible doesnt claim to be the measuring stick by which a Christian should test doctrine.
4. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not Biblical.

Q.E.D.

It would be better to be intellectually honest and just say, "it's the way we treat the Bible". You'd get no argument, instead there is this need to try to twist scripture. Doesnt make any sense to me.

For me not a single point you have posted here is true at all. Scriptures provided in the first post in this very page linked disagree with your claims. The Roman Catholic Church tries teach against sola scriptura because the bible teaches against much of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. That does not mean that God does not have people in the RCC living up to all the knowledge God has revealed to them. For me only Gods Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings of men that break the commandments of God. Jesus warns us about this in his very own words in Matthew 15:3-9. The Word of God is the only standard of faith according to the scriptures and there is no faith without it.

 

[concretecamper]

For me not a single point you have posted here is true at all.

really?, I've read the Bible.

Scriptures provided in the first post in this very page linked.

all these references do is show the importance of the Word of God and the importance of scripture. None of these references prove Scripture alone, Only Scripture.

For me the reason why the Roman Catholic Church tries to teach against sola scriptura is that the bible teaches against much of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches

nice deflection. You of course can start a thread on this. For the purpose of this thread, dont derail.

 

[DamianWarS]

Huh?

How does that response relate to what I said?

And why are you falsely putting words in my mouth?

Let me rephrase, do you think doctrines based on oral doctrines are a product of a post constantine Roman Empire?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Scripture says I'm right.

I trust you have a chapter and a verse that identifies you by name as being right. You have provided yourself an infallibility that goes way beyond what Catholics claim the pope has.

If it thoroughly furnishes us, how can we need any more?

Now you are speaking in the plural. Above was the singular. Is the 'us' just you and the fellows in your group? Or is it you and me? Or all of those people who think Scripture says they are right (and you are consequently wrong)?

I'm looking at this empirically. I think you are looking at it dogmatically I look and conclude it is impossible for Scripture to be sufficient simply because of the outcome of so many people who claim to follow Scripture alone having so many conflicting beliefs. Your only dogmatic response to that would seem to be that Scripture is sufficient for you but not for those who disagree with you. But that seems to come down to you being right and everyone else is wrong. So I'm back to asking you how you know that. And how anyone else would know whether you are right and they are wrong.

 

[Dave L]

I trust you have a chapter and a verse that identifies you by name as being right. You have provided yourself an infallibility that goes way beyond what Catholics claim the pope has.

Now you are speaking in the plural. Above was the singular. Is the 'us' just you and the fellows in your group? Or is it you and me? Or all of those people who think Scripture says they are right (and you are consequently wrong)?

I'm looking at this empirically. I think you are looking at it dogmatically I look and conclude it is impossible for Scripture to be sufficient simply because of the outcome of so many people who claim to follow Scripture alone having so many conflicting beliefs. Your only dogmatic response to that would seem to be that Scripture is sufficient for you but not for those who disagree with you. But that seems to come down to you being right and everyone else is wrong. So I'm back to asking you how you know that. And how anyone else would know whether you are right and they are wrong.

If I align with what scripture says, I'm right.

 

[chevyontheriver]

We've just passed the 200 posts mark, the noise is increasing, but still no sign of anyone willing, let alone able to prove the claim in the OP.

I got so bored reading the blabber in this thread that I decided to listen to a real debate about the sufficiency of Sola Sriptura, this one between Tim Staples and James White. At least in that debate the blabber was only half of what it is here, i.e. when James White opens his mouth.

Anyway, carry on, this thread has now devolved into an open duck season, so bring along your own topic and have a great day!

After 200 posts there is little new to add. And you are right that threads tend to go downhill.

Tim Staples does a good job on apologetics. Most of what we have here is pretty low grade. It would be worth it for all sides in this to give that debate an impartial (Ha!) listen.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

really?, I've read the Bible.

You may have read some of the bible I do not know. It was the claims that you made afterwards that are not true however according to the scriptures you claim to have read.

For example, you claim that...The Bible doesn't claim to be the Sole source of Christian faith. Yet it is God's Word (not mine) that says that faith only comes from the Word of God *Romans 10:17. So this claim is not true.

Then you posted that... "The Bible doesnt claim to be the measuring stick by which a Christian should test doctrine". Yet the bible says that only God's Word is true and every man a liar in Romans 3:4 and we ought to obey God rather than man in Acts of the Apostles 5:29 and to the law and the testimony (the Word) if they speak not according to this Word there is no truth in them *Isaiah 8:20. We can also add that the bible also says that our salvation comes from the Word of God in John 6:63 and that all scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness in 3 Timothy 3:16. So your statement here is not true according to the scriptures.

Based on your previous statements you then say... "Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not Biblical" when your previous statement are proven not true according to the scriptures. So this statement cannot be true either.

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ For me the reason why the Roman Catholic Church tries to teach against sola scriptura is that the bible teaches against much of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches

Your response here..

nice deflection. You of course can start a thread on this. For the purpose of this thread, dont derail.

Why do you think this is a deflection? It is not a deflection it is on topic as many of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are not biblical and one of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is to deny Sola Scriptura as the only test of faith. Yet it is these very scriptures that define "the faith" as the teachings of the Word of God in Romans 10:17

Hope this is helpful.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If I align with what scripture says, I'm right.

Do you really align? Would all of the other Protestants here agree that you align perfectly with Scripture? Might you be wrong from time to time? Perhaps not a perfect interpreter of Scripture? Or are you more infallible than the pope?

 

[Radagast]

Let me rephrase, do you think doctrines based on oral doctrines are a product of a post constantine Roman Empire?

I don't think "oral doctrines" existed after the New Testament was written.

 

[Radagast]

Or are you more infallible than the pope?

I've read what the pope's been saying, so yes, I'm pretty much certain that @Dave L is at least as infallible as the pope.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I've read what the pope's been saying, so yes, I'm pretty much certain that @Dave L is at least as infallible as the pope.

I would have thought that your position would be that nobody is infallible. But it seems that there are people who claim infallibility when it suits them, just not a limited infallibility for a particular Catholic. Dave seems to wear his personal infallibility comfortably. And you just approved.

And I've been reading what this pope has been saying, with dismay, but on several occasions when he could make teaching statements on matters of faith and morals he has failed to do the expected (heterodox) thing. As an example, answering the dubia in the way I expect he would want to answer, somehow he just hasn't done that. Is he protected from answering it wrongly? Seems so. Is he otherwise a train wreck? Yup. I don't think any statement he has made comes up against the limited understanding of infallibility that Catholics have.

I'm winding down in this discussion. It is meandering more and more. Getting sillier as it goes. Much more heat than light now. The OP was a worthy question, but almost nobody is addressing the actual question any more. So if you want to discuss infallibility, maybe you will find someone else to discuss it with. I am going to cook breakfast and prepare for mass and then go out to the lake for the afternoon.

 

[dms1972]

They accepted doctrine given to them orally and then they ensured that it aligned with Sacred Scripture.

If you want to see something akin to "sola scriptura", go back a passage or two when the Jews of Thessalonica ran St. Paul out on a rail. That was "sola scriptura" in action. The Bereans? They accepted St. Paul's oral teaching. Spin that any way you want. But they accepted oral teaching.

That's not "sola scriptura".

Would you mind giving your understanding of "sola scripture"?

 

[Radagast]

I would have thought that your position would be that nobody is infallible.

Indeed it is. I phrased myself very carefully.

In mathematics, x ≥ y includes the case where x = y = 0.

 

[Dave L]

I've read what the pope's been saying, so yes, I'm pretty much certain that @Dave L is at least as infallible as the pope.

Scripture is the only infallible if correctly understood.

 

[Dave L]

Do you really align? Would all of the other Protestants here agree that you align perfectly with Scripture? Might you be wrong from time to time? Perhaps not a perfect interpreter of Scripture? Or are you more infallible than the pope?

The Ecumenical Creeds were summaries about what scripture says on many topics. If you can prove them wrong then you're closer to knowing the truth. But many have left the creeds and now contradict each other and scripture.

 

[Albion]

Good point--however, the words that have been given are sufficient for our salvation. And that is what is important. Salvation.

Not knowing everything does make some things a matter of faith., And God honors faith. We may not have everything, but ENOGH for our salvation . Sufficient---enough.

 

[Albion]

So you got it exactly right, the only one to do so, and everybody else got it wrong, and Scripture is sufficient?

I'm going to have to suggest you read it again, if that's what you took from it.

I didn't personalize the point, and the point itself was that even if some people misunderstand what is revealed, that doesn't mean that: 1) no one can get it right or 2) the source itself is not correct.

 

[Randy777]

This thread is in reply to a double invitation by @Athanasius377 to a debate (here and here).

The topic I proposed was Sola Scriptura, but @Athanasius377 chose to limit the scope of the debate to the sufficiency of the Scriptures. So here we go.

Based on James White's definition of Sola Scriptura (here), which I believe most Protestants can agree with, here is the claim I would like to discuss:

Claim: "The Scriptures are sufficient to function as a Rule of Faith."

Challenge: Prove it!

Rules: Be charitable and respectful, stick to the topic, be as brief and clear as possible.

Despite what people might state usually , "what we believe" is full of scripture references.

 

[mlepfitjw]

No. Jesus Christ should be the ruler of our faith, and not everything the scriptures do say.

You know, a long time ago Jesus Christ told his disciples to go preach, and that is what they did. They went and preached about the good news/ message of Christ Jesus.

Later on they were inspired to write, so they did. Many people didn't even have a bible to read up until the 1400s, when it was first printed of in Latin by the Gutenberg Press.

The scriptures are great, they have a lot of history about the jews, and the gentiles, and they should be read and looked into but not something people MAN-date over peoples lives. It also a way we can learn about the Spirit of God, and how we are to look to Christ Jesus.

If anything we look to the Lord Jesus... who told us to love, and to pray for our enemies, and to help the poor, and to hand over our cloak when someone tries to sue us, or when we are struck to give also the other cheek.

 

[concretecamper]

For example, you claim that...The Bible doesn't claim to be the Sole source of Christian faith. Yet it is God's Word (not mine) that says that faith only comes from the Word of God *Romans 10:17. So this claim is not true.

This passage of Roman's doesnt even come close to proving SS. This passage DOES NOT say scripture alone.

Then you posted that... "The Bible doesnt claim to be the measuring stick by which a Christian should test doctrine". Yet the bible says that only God's Word is true and every man a liar in Romans 3:4

of course God's Word is true. Still no SS.

and we ought to obey God rather than man in Acts of the Apostles 5:29 and to the law and the testimony (the Word) if they speak not according to this Word there is no truth in them

you added (the Word). Testimony does not refer to only the written word. Therefore, this passage refutes SS. See, you added to the Word of God to make it fit your ideas.

We can also add that the bible also says that our salvation comes from the Word of God

correct. Through Christ, not the Bible.

and that all scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness in 3 Timothy 3:16

all this.says is that scripture is profitable. It doesnt say ONLY scripture is profitable.

Based on your previous statements you then say... "Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not Biblical" when your previous statement are proven not true according to the scriptures. So this statement cannot be true either.

my statement is true becasue I've shown the passage you have quoted dont support SS

Hope this is helpful.

I hope it is too to those who are following this thread.

BTW, still no SS