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

[concretecamper]

It would be great if those who believe in SS would just say"

"this is the way I approach scripture. I know scripture itself doesn't teach it, but that I am taking scripture as my sole and final rule of faith".

Instead, we have those who have to add to scripture to make scripture say what they want it to say.

 

[concretecamper]

While verses that speak of the value of the word of God are all over the Bible and have been cited before, taking up my reply in post #40 would be to deal with an even more fundamental reason for trusting Scripture

EVERYONE TRUST SCRIPTURE! You can now point to the part where it says ONLY!

 

[Albion]

EVERYONE TRUST SCRIPTURE!

I've already said that myself. See post #40.

The next question concerns what the paragraph following that one in post #40 took up.

 

[concretecamper]

Still waiting on the scripture where it says "Scripture Only"

 

[Albion]

I can't think of any necessary message which is other or better than all I have found in God's word. But there are things which words alone can not tell us, which we need to find out how to do, with God. So, this would be how I personally understand sola scriptura.

But I get the impression that there are people saying "yay sola scriptura" but they need to find out much more of what the Scriptures are saying and what they really mean.

No. The "problem" there is with understanding what Sola Scriptura means. It does not mean that everything that can be known is in Scripture. Not even all things that bear upon living the Christian life, the administration of the church, religious ceremonies, or etc.

Sola Scriptura refers to essential doctrine. That was the issue when Luther raised the banner of Scripture Alone. It wasn't a challenge to the color of the priests' vestments or dietary policies relating to Lent.

The point concerned religious leaders who were creating new doctrines, not referred to in Scripture, that the faithful were then commanded to believe.

 

[mmksparbud]

Still waiting on the scripture where it says "Scripture Only"

Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The law is the 10 commandments, the testimony is everything else in scripture. It is all that Jesus and the disciples, and all 1st Christians had---the OT. It is what Jesus showed the 2 on the road to Emmaus. It is what showed Jesus who He really was.

 

[Athanasius377]

The relevant issue is they accepted oral teaching.

The Bereans did not practice "sola scriptura". Because it's a man-made doctrine and they were of a more noble character.

Of course they accepted oral teaching as it was in accord with what scriptures they already had. Furthermore we do not argue that there was not a time that the NT scriptures existed in oral form. They were later recorded for us in written form.

 

[Athanasius377]

at the time period Acts was written, what was considered scripture? The Tanakh was considered scripture. This passage cannot apply to the Bible as you know it.

So the NT is not to be considered scripture or is there an alternative meaning to the word "all"?

 

[concretecamper]

So the NT is not to be considered scripture or is there an alternative meaning to the word "all"?

what was considered scripture when Acts was written?

Also,please address the ONLY portion of SS

 

[concretecamper]

Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The law is the 10 commandments, the testimony is everything else in scripture. It is all that Jesus and the disciples, and all 1st Christians had---the OT. It is what Jesus showed the 2 on the road to Emmaus. It is what showed Jesus who He really was.

precisely, at that time, the Tanakh was the only thing considered scripture.

 

[Athanasius377]

First, this passage doesnt say "Only' Scripture. I think we could all agree with St Paul's words, just dont add the word "Only".

Second, see my post above about the Tanakh.

I prefer this transation personally:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (2 Ti 3:16–17). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

My question is, what besides scripture does the church possess that is God-Breathed or θεόπνευστος?

 

[concretecamper]

My question is, what besides scripture does the church possess that is God-Breathed or θεόπνευστος?

no one has been able to show where it says "Only" scripture. That is what this is about. You will get no argument about the great importance of scripture.

Again, anyone able to show us all where the Bible says ONLY scripture?

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Still waiting on the scripture where it says "Scripture Only"

1 Corinthians 4:8 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
Here's what happens when you do: Mark 7:13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

A perfect example of this would be the following:
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

"The Nature of the Catholic faith is such that nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away. Either it is held in its entirety or it is rejected totally. This is the Catholic faith which, unless a man believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved"....Pope Benedict XV

 

[concretecamper]

1 Corinthians 4:8 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

so you dont go beyond the Tanakh? Ok, that is up to you.

A perfect example of this would be the following:
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I would agree that we should not add or take away from the Apocalypse.

"The Nature of the Catholic faith is such that nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away. Either it is held in its entirety or it is rejected totally. This is the Catholic faith which, unless a man believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved"....Pope Benedict XV

I would agree


Still waiting for the ONLY part of the SS argument.

 

[mmksparbud]

no one has been able to show where it says "Only" scripture. That is what this is about. You will get no argument about the great importance of scripture.

Again, anyone able to show us all where the Bible says ONLY scripture?

But, again, that is what this means. Anything else has to agree with what the scriptures have already said.

Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[DamianWarS]

Sola Scriptura is a modern invention.

Oral teaching was the main for hundreds of years. The ordinary person firstly, was rather illiterate and secondly there was not enough written material to go around 'everyone'.

People always needed someone to 'interpret' scripture for them. This has continued from the Apostles.

Sola Scripture is a product of the reformation and is in response to the corruption of the church, it doesn't make sense in the early church nor could it be defended. The reformation could not have happened without the printing press which enabled translated scripture to be mass-produced so that all may have access to it. the 16th century is the first time where scripture could be mass-produced so that doctrine can be checked, it works only when scripture is widely available. There is a unique turn of events of the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and the subsequent Byzantine diaspora. Byzantines, keepers of scriptures, were pushed west most or course landed in Greece but also rippled out to all of Europe. Why do you think the KJV is a Byzantine text type? I believe the fall of the Roman Empire ended an age that was then dispersed out into Europe ushering in a new age. Not to say reformers are better than Catholics or Catholics are better than reformers it is a release of the gospel in a new way that is triggered by this event now for the first time overshadowed by the Internet. It's not the oral teaching is wrong it's that with all the information we have today there is no reason why scripture isn't sufficient because everyone has access to it.

 

[chilehed]

Still waiting for the ONLY part of the SS argument.

I hope you're not holding your breath.

 

[concretecamper]

Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony

testimony does not mean only written. In fact, I would argue that testimony is an oral function.

Anyways, I am still waiting for anyone to show me in the Bible where it says that ONLY scripture is the rule of fairh. Anyone?

 

[concretecamper]

Sola Scripture is a product of the reformation and is in response to the corruption of the church, it doesn't make sense in the early church nor could it be defended. The reformation could not have happened without the printing press which enabled translated scripture to be mass-produced so that all may have access to it. the 16th century is the first time where scripture could be mass-produced so that doctrine can be checked, it works only when scripture is widely available. There is a unique turn of events of the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and the subsequent Byzantine diaspora. Byzantines, keepers of scriptures, were pushed west most or course landed in Greece but also rippled out to all of Europe. Why do you think the KJV is a Byzantine text type? I believe the fall of the Roman Empire ended an age that was then dispersed out into Europe ushering in a new age. Not to say reformers are better than Catholics or Catholics are better than reformers it is a release of the gospel in a new way that is triggered by this event now for the first time overshadowed by the Internet. It's not the oral teaching is wrong it's that with all the information we have today there is no reason why scripture isn't sufficient because everyone has access to it.

thank you for your view. While I do not agree with your conclusion, you didnt try to twist scripture into proving SS.

 

[mmksparbud]

testimony does not mean only written. In fact, I would argue that testimony is an oral function.

Anyways, I am still waiting for anyone to show me in the Bible where it says that ONLY scripture is the rule of fairh. Anyone?

It is still something that has to comply with the already written word. And can you tell me, who has authority over the scriptures?