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

[Albion]

My point is SS works on a theoretical level in the early church but not a practical level.

I understand, but I don't agree.

The councils were really the things that stabilized the church and doctrines not affirmed in the councils were still being formulated, argued by scripture or tradition by the 1% but until the councils commented on it the doctrines were still wet cement, the nature of Jesus is a good example.

As has been mentioned already, the Christian churches had, on their own, long since accepted almost all of the books that eventually were put into the Bible by these councils. There were only a handful of books from our Bibles that were in dispute.

What the councils mainly did was reject the Gnostic writings and other such material and put an official 'stamp of approval' on the letters/books that the councils deemed to be inspired.

The councils were dealing with a various challenges and affirm things not commented by scripture things like theotokos and iconography and even the Trinity, these things were fought out and bishops were quite aggressive with their perspectives and losers were banished and stripped of their rank and privilege labeled as heretics and enemies of the church.

It sounds like you are referring to the Ecumenical Councils that wrestled with some famous points of doctrine, but the councils that canonized the Bible were not in that number.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Every Christian can draw a straight line from themselves to Christ.

Some are straighter than others tho.

Your claim to the true church would be hotly debated by the Orthodox and they have very clear reasons why through an evolved church they could no longer commit to it which prompted their departure and it wasn't a rash choice as east and west have already been in disagreement for centuries.

It is true that the Catholic Church is separated from the Orthodox. However, it is also true that the main disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox is ecclesiological in nature. On questions of doctrine, the Catholic priest involved in ecumenical talks with the Orthodox say there is no disagreement. And we've been separated from them for a very long time now.

 

[thecolorsblend]

BTW, still no SS

 

[pescador]

Just not pretending that everything we believe is straight out of Scripture like all of those folks who disagree with each other all the while they claim EVERYTHING they believe is straight out of Scripture alone.

Better than believing that all truth comes from the fallible Pope.

 

[pescador]

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.

Your last paragraph is straight out of Scripture. For me, that negates your other paragraphs and states correctly it is the basis of all truth.

 

[Albion]

On questions of doctrine, the Catholic priest involved in ecumenical talks with the Orthodox say there is no disagreement. And we've been separated from them for a very long time now.

Obviously, he was "gilding the lily" with that comment in order to be diplomatic. That's what happens when negotiations are underway or contemplated, just as we also see in political summits.

The differences between these communions are less than they are between two other denominations that we could find, but they do exist and are not trivial.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Your last paragraph is straight out of Scripture. For me, that negates your other paragraphs and states correctly it is the basis of all truth.

Sure. The thing is those things are based on and off the spirit that is given to believers. It has nothing to do with some of what people talk about, like oh there no salvation for people who do not accept Jesus Christ, even after this life. Oh No all people will never bow down to praise God, because only some people will choose to do so. Jesus Christ didn't die for the sin of the whole world only the chosen.

Scripture is great like I said, it has history and it is all contextually based. My only problem with when people use SCRIPTURE as a MANDATE to say THIS IS HOW IT IS.


Now for somethings in the bible it is objective truths, and others are subjective truths. It doesn't really mean that sola scriptura (Scripture is the only way to live life) You can actually freely live life by the spirit of God, but if you wanna overcome your flesh, wanna overcome the world we gotta read the word, it's good for us but it doesn't mean to mandate others in your individual seek for truth, just ask yourself if what people teach leads to more faith, and more love.

All Sola Scriptura does to people is divide them. And there is plenty of history that people can look at that will back up this claim.

 

[DamianWarS]

Some are straighter than others tho

Christ draws the lines so you'll have to compare you're measure with his.

It is true that the Catholic Church is separated from the Orthodox. However, it is also true that the main disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox is ecclesiological in nature. On questions of doctrine, the Catholic priest involved in ecumenical talks with the Orthodox say there is no disagreement. And we've been separated from them for a very long time now.

I think the bishop of Rome may be a disagreement, but if you're so chummy why is the Eucharist door closed? This still defects the point why are your positions above "private interpretation". Christ tells us the measure we use on others will be use on us. So how has your measure of "private interpretation" critically been used on yourself? Because if you don't bring your own words to account Christ will do it for you.

 

[Philip_B]

This still defects the point why are your positions above "private interpretation".

History and tradition, whilst not perfect, do show us something of the collective mind of the people of God. To hold 'private interpretation' above the collective mind of the people of God as a default position is to my mind a dangerous position, however there is a time for it, for there must always be space in the Church for the prophetic voice.

There is a dynamic tension, as the Gospel calls each of us the change, whilst held too harshly tradition can call us to stay firm.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Christ draws the lines so you'll have to compare you're measure with his.

I'm a member of the Church he founded.

Your move.

I think the bishop of Rome may be a disagreement,

So when I said that our big source of disagreement was ecclesiological in nature, I was right?

but if you're so chummy

Who said we're chummy? I just said we have basically no disagreement vis a vis doctrine.

why is the Eucharist door closed?

Why would you ask me? Isn't that a question for them to answer?

Christ tells us the measure we use on others will be use on us. So how has your measure of "private interpretation" critically been used on yourself? Because if you don't bring your own words to account Christ will do it for you.

I stand by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Her interpretations are the products of many men discussing many issues many times over many years, sometimes even centuries.

Frankly, I find that far more trustworthy than some evangelical hipster who graduated from "Bible college" making stuff up as he goes along during his Sunday sermons. There's no accounting for taste tho.

 

[Albion]

I'm a member of the Church he founded.

Yes, we all are.

So when I said that our big source of disagreement was ecclesiological in nature, I was right?

No. The Papacy and all that it is about is not simply a question of polity. It is doctrinal to believe what Catholics believe about the origin and purpose of the Papacy, just as much as the Orthodox belief in the equality of the successors of the Apostles is.

I stand by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Her interpretations are the products of many men discussing many issues many times over many years, sometimes even centuries.

An Orthodox Christian would say the same and yet the traditions, interpretations, and so forth of centuries in both East and West have produced different doctrines.

 

[pescador]

I'm a member of the Church he founded.

Your move.

So when I said that our big source of disagreement was ecclesiological in nature, I was right?

Who said we're chummy? I just said we have basically no disagreement vis a vis doctrine.

Why would you ask me? Isn't that a question for them to answer?

I stand by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Her interpretations are the products of many men discussing many issues many times over many years, sometimes even centuries.

Frankly, I find that far more trustworthy than some evangelical hipster who graduated from "Bible college" making stuff up as he goes along during his Sunday sermons. There's no accounting for taste tho.

No prejudice here: "Frankly, I find that far more trustworthy than some evangelical hipster who graduated from "Bible college" making stuff up as he goes along during his Sunday sermons. There's no accounting for taste tho."

The Catholic church was not founded by Jesus Christ. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of Catholicism; it is a religion invented by Rome centuries later to mirror emperor worship.

Decisions throughout Catholic history have been made by fallible men, and there have been many, many errors. That was the primary reason that the Protestant Reformation happened (thank God!)

Jesus alone is Lord! He is the head of the church, nobody else. If I'm wrong, show me in the Bible. And please, don't come up with "on this rock I will build my church". Peter was called Satan a few verses later and cowardly denied knowing Jesus three times.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If I'm wrong, show me in the Bible. And please, don't come up with "on this rock I will build my church". Peter was called Satan a few verses later and cowardly denied knowing Jesus three times.

 

[concretecamper]

show me in the Bible

over 250 posts and nothing has been posted that says the Bible is the sole rule of faith for a Christian and you can say show me in the bible? Have you been reading along?

 

[Athanasius377]

You know what else was in the OP? A challenge to prove "sola scriptura". The wait goes on for that.

As an aside, however, I note that the definition of "sola scriptura" provided by my coreligionist in the OP is "the Scriptures are sufficient to function as a Rule of Faith". A rule of faith. The indefinite article in italics there implicitly opens the door to other rules of faith.

So when the term "sola scriptura" is used, we don't mean "sola" and we don't mean "scriptura"?

Actually I did answer the challenge.

There have been other rules of faith historically though mostly in the apostolic period while scripture was still being collected and later recognized as scripture. For example, JND Kelley notes:

As the second century advances, we come across more detailed citations of ‘the rule of faith’, i.e. the teaching inherited from the apostles and set out in freely worded summaries. Sometimes these are cast in a dyadic mould and refer to the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but the triadic pattern, affirming belief in the Father Who created the universe, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, gradually becomes normal. An illustration may be quoted from a treatise5 of Irenaeus’s which gives a very fair picture of intelligent catechetical instruction at this period:

This, then, is the order of the rule of our faith.… God the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith. The second point is this: the Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, Who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the Father’s dispensation; through Whom (i.e. the Word) all things were made; Who also, at the end of the age, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce perfect reconciliation between God and man. And the third point is: the Holy Spirit, through Whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led into the way of righteousness; Who at the end of the age was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man to God.



Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, pp. 88–89). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.


An acknowledgment of more than one Rule of Faith is a historical fact that anyone with a cursory knowledge of church history recognizes. I'm no sure why you think its a big deal. Perhaps this is news to you. I gave the citation from the book I quoted. The author is Anglican and is pretty even handed in his treatment of this subject (and others). While I guess you won't agree with his conclusions his evidence is tough to beat.

Sola Scriptura is a phrase that was used over and against the tradition and magisterium of Rome in the 16th century because of abuses like selling salvation for money, Simony, relic trade and so forth. (And to be fair the Catholic Reformation cleaned up a lot of these abuses following Trent). It was meant as a means to examine these traditions and teachings to be sure they are in accord with scripture as scripture is the highest authority. It does not mean throw the church out, God the Holy Spirit or anything of the sort. The problem is that the phrase Sola Scriptura means different things to different groups which is why the OP included a definition.

 

[Athanasius377]

umm.... Sola

So you didn't read the OP. That's par for course I've noticed.

 

[Tradidi]

Actually I did answer the challenge.

Really? Sorry, I missed it. Can you please clearly repeat it.

 

[Athanasius377]

Your question "what besides scripture..." is irrelevant, because we are not talking about "anything besides Scripture". It is Scripture that the claim in the OP is about.



Since this is crucial to the correct interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, I must insist we are clear on this point before continuing.

The nature of a thing is a set of characteristics that describe and apply to each and every thing with that nature. For example, if I know that the nature of an apple is that it grows on a tree, then I know that every apple grows on a tree. When I know that this thing I have in my hands is an apple, then I know that this thing I have in my hands grew on a tree, because that is the nature of an apple.

By the way, if you are not sure how a Protestant ought to answer this question, or if you think it is a trick question, check out the great debate between James White and Patrick Madrid for some inspiration. It is James White himself who brought this point to my attention, thinking in the end it would support SS.

So, when you're ready, let me know which one it is: you agree, you disagree, you need more clarification.

Do you agree that St. Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is speaking about the nature of Scripture?

I agree that by nature are series of attributes that a thing possess. Would you agree that the attributes of scripture are both natural and supernatural?

 

[Tradidi]

I agree that by nature are series of attributes that a thing possess. Would you agree that the attributes of scripture are both natural and supernatural?

You still did not answer the question. You agree what the nature of a thing is, i.e. "a series of attributes that a thing possesses". Great, so we agree on something. But do you agree that in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 St. Paul is speaking about the nature of Scripture? Or is he speaking about something else?

 

[pescador]

View attachment 280785

Look, we both know what the Bible says. I'm not interested in extrabiblical cartoons.