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

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Except it isn't. Your attempts to frame it that way are merely your private interpretation.
there is a flaw in this argument. there is an interpretation I assume you deem as valid but where did this come from? when you go back far enough do you cross a point where private interpretations are now official church doctrine? Doctrines were often violently forged by bishops, fought out until the last man was standing won, the loser cast out and declared a heretic while the other honoured and declared a saint. There was a good many motivations and agendas that were not honourable but the positons are now Orthodox. Because they are early church father's their words are in stone and cannot be checked. I agree every verse seems to have 1000 interpretations from 1000 denominations and some clearly very wrong so how do we know which is right and which is wrong? do we cast them aside and label them private interpretations or is there a place to still be critical even with the old stuyff? saying something is a "private interpretation" is not really an argument it's a deflection, I might as well say your thoughts are also private interpretations but that doesn't say anything at all except I don't want to talk about it anymore.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
thank you for your view. While I do not agree with your conclusion, you didnt try to twist scripture into proving SS.
it is a contradiction to say SS is in scripture and flawed thinking but SS also is not responsible in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... centuries. to say "by scripture alone" when there is very little available or none at all to the masses is just arbitrary. the 16th, specifically from the invention of the printing press, subsequent critical greek printed text and translations emerging and being printed is the time when it becomes responsible where the former keepers of doctrines now become the arbitrary thing. There is a good number of practices defended by the church out of corruption not out of truth, history paints that picture very clearly. So when is the church steered by a pope with his captain's hat on and when is it steered by a pope with that hat taken off? Who gets to decides the voice of the church in x position and x time was not from true authority? We now are a step over that where anyone who can read and has access to the internet has to far more information than the early church or any reformer ever did and doctrines can still be critically talked about.
 
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Sola Scriptura in the bible:

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

AND:

2 Timothy 3
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 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 Timothy 3:16–17 (NCPB)

I'm not saying you don't. Your church certainly says that the Bible is divinely inspired, just as the Bible itself testifies.

But if all this is correct to say, how can Scripture not be treated as if it were, in fact, the final word on essential doctrine--since, that is, nothing can be more authoritative than what God himself has revealed to mankind?? Or complete or adequate for his purposes.

:mmh:

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

I may be able to help here; if nothing else, I hope & pray to add a useful & respectful angle to this discussion.

Throughout the entire Bible, people go to the religious authorities to understand the final meaning of Scripture. Since Acts has been brought up more than any other book in this discussion so far, we will work with Acts.

Consider Chapter 15. There is a lot to discuss about this chapter, but the most relevant point to this discussion plays out in verses 1-2:

"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question." (NIV)
Scripture was surely being argued in this debate. Indeed, verse 5 tells us that converted Pharisees were arguing in favor of mandatory circumcision. While the Pharisees are often demonized for lack of love, they knew the Scriptures better than any of us, and Jesus even told His disciples about their position as a teaching authority, even if they didn't live what they taught:

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." --Matthew 23:2-3, NIV
In Acts, we see a transition of authority, from the Pharisees before the Christian Church was founded, to the Church authorities, who were in Jerusalem at this point in history. Both sides were using Scripture to figure out what should be done, yet they came to disagreements. How should this be resolved? By going to the ones who held authority to give the final word on Scriptures.

Two points on this:
  1. The Council of Jerusalem happened before Acts was written. This is easy enough to prove; how can you write about a meeting before the meeting had taken place? The strong implication here is, Church authority was already established before this piece of Scripture was written. Nowhere in the Bible definitively declared circumcision to no longer be necessary, yet this Council could give a definitive declaration, which was only later recorded in the Bible.
  2. The more fundamental point--where does the Bible tell us what books belong in the Bible? Nowhere. We trust Church authority every time we pick up a Bible. 1 Timothy, Revelation, Acts, everything that has been brought up in this discussion is based on a decision made in the 4th Century, later edited in the 16th century. The groundwork for how to determine what books are truly "inspired" by the Spirit, to function as something that can be trusted as the Word of God, is nowhere in Scripture.
I hope this helps us reach an agreement, or at least get a little more thoughtful about our responses to this legitimate question of authority. Let me know if you want any more clarification!

And if you want to see Point 2 in more detail, I already have a very relevant thread for that: Why I Choose Catholic Christianity

May God bless us with peace and good discussions!:pray:

Not necessarily. All that he said became scripture when written.
What bible verse can you give to defend this point? Furthermore, why would only apply to Paul's writings, as opposed to other books that were not considered canonical?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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.
I don't know where such a notion as that might have come from, but it's not so. Scripture was known. The books had been canonized in the 4th century AD. A Bible scholar and monk like Luther certainly knew the Bible as did the leaders and theologians of the Church of Rome. There is no doubt about that, even if copies were not universally available and literacy was less then than it is today in Western society.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The more fundamental point--where does the Bible tell us what books belong in the Bible? Nowhere.
We trust Church authority every time we pick up a Bible. 1 Timothy, Revelation, Acts, everything that has been brought up in this discussion is based on a decision made in the 4th Century, later edited in the 16th century.

So what is the point of that, Alex? We have Scripture, do we not? We know what it represents, do we not (word of God)?

If it is God's word, as we say it is, then it has to be, absolutely must be, superior in authority to any other source of information.

Nothing man-produced, no matter how wise--custom, theory, speculation, opinion, customs, traditions, etc.--can stack up against the revelation from God. Right? Because...God! We're talking about God! It's the same as holding that there cannot be anyone more powerful or knowledgeable than God.

So, either the Scriptures are NOT God's word and therefore are not more authoritative than other information or they ARE what we think they are...and we are bound to treat them as such. We cannot have something in between those. Not the Bible is God's revealed word but it isn't necessarily adequate for its purpose.
 
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
So what is the point of that, Alex? We have Scripture, do we not? We know what it represents, do we not (word of God)?

If it is God's word, as we say it is, then it has to be, absolutely must be, superior in authority to any other source of information.

Nothing man-produced, no matter how wise--custom, theory, speculation, opinion, customs, traditions, etc.--can stack up against the revelation from God. Right? Because...God! We're talking about God! It's the same as holding that there cannot be anyone more powerful or knowledgeable than God.

So, either the Scriptures are NOT God's word and therefore are not more authoritative than other information or they ARE what we think they are...and we are bound to treat them as such. We cannot have something in between those. Not the Bible is God's revealed word but it isn't necessarily adequate for its purpose.
These are all valid questions; thank you for sharing. Nothing I said was meant to diminish Scriptures, as I established more clearly in the link I provided to my other thread. I just wanted to point out that nowhere in Scripture does it say what counts as Scripture, and therefore the authority of Scripture is deeply intertwined with the authority of the Church.C

Using the Bible as an authority for determining Christian truth is a very good thing; referring to Scripture as the only authority seems a bit naive, as the Church told us what counts as Scripture, without being able to use Scripture as the final authority in their decision.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tradidi
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
So the NT is not to be considered scripture or is there an alternative meaning to the word "all"?
There apparently is an alternate meaning to the word all, since we're not universalists.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tradidi
Upvote 0

Rachel20

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2020
1,954
1,443
STX
✟58,109.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not the Bible is God's revealed word but it isn't necessarily adequate for its purpose.

I think Jude 3 argues this point, in the sense that the faith (doctrine) was once delivered - ie one time, once for all - implying it must be complete/adequate for its purpose

"... earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
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?

You are not alone concretecamper. Think I counted at least 4-5 times where you have asked for a Scripture passage where it say's that "Scripture alone" is sufficient as a sole rule of faith.


Pretty sure you'll never get it. :)

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I think Jude 3 argues this point, in the sense that the faith (doctrine) was once delivered - ie one time, once for all - implying it must be complete/adequate for its purpose

"... earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
I think it is too bad that Jude spent his short letter complaining about the problems and did not actually iterate what the faith that was once delivered was.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
--because hearsay was not adequate, they turned to the word of God which was the final authority.


How so?
The Anglican theme sums it up best when it says, "The Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation".
 
Upvote 0

Rachel20

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2020
1,954
1,443
STX
✟58,109.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think it is too bad that Jude spent his short letter complaining about the problems and did not actually iterate what the faith that was once delivered was.

If the problems were contrary to the faith, then they can reveal the faith by contrast. Jude directs us to both the old testament, and to the apostles words (v 17)
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
These are all valid questions; thank you for sharing. Nothing I said was meant to diminish Scriptures, as I established more clearly in the link I provided to my other thread.
Right. There was no question about that. I was playing off of your comments in order to speak to the general conversation of this thread.

I just wanted to point out that nowhere in Scripture does it say what counts as Scripture, and therefore the authority of Scripture is deeply intertwined with the authority of the Church.
Yes, that's so. But as all of us are Christians, we accept that Scripture is what the church has decided it is. But once we do that, we shut the door to compromising our view of Scripture.

We posit that the Bible is God's word as a function of being members of Christ's church, and we cannot then treat the Bible as incomplete. But that is at least partially what Christians are doing unconsciously if they say that they believe the Bible to be God's word but don't think it has everything that we need in order to be saved.

Using the Bible as an authority for determining Christian truth is a very good thing; referring to Scripture as the only authority seems a bit naive, as the Church told us what counts as Scripture, without being able to use Scripture as the final authority in their decision.

Well, this is the misconception that I've been laboring to overcome or correct, but it looks like the tries haven't been very convincing. ^_^
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You are not alone concretecamper. Think I counted at least 4-5 times where you have asked for a Scripture passage where it say's that "Scripture alone" is sufficient as a sole rule of faith.


Pretty sure you'll never get it. :)

Have a Blessed Day!
Is there some reason YOU folks cannot do a survey yourselves online rather than sending us on a time-consuming task of compiling, copying, etc. of more than a dozen verses only to have the reply be a big harrumpf just as it has been before?

The suggestion is that it is not really wanted but is just something to say. See how much fun all the verbal high-fiving has provided already!
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,884
3,525
✟320,712.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
The main problem with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with the sufficiency of Scripture, but everything to do with the sufficiency of interpretations of Scripture. If Scripture isn't interpreted sufficiently well (and who or what will be the judge of that except for our own, personal opinions?), then the sufficiency of Scripture itself is meaningless. God's word is true-but if it was meant to be left in the hands of the individual alone (which is effectively what the doctrine demands) to understand it, then we most likely won't understand in any very full sense of the concept.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,159
16,006
Flyoverland
✟1,223,623.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
No, they checked it against Sacred Scripture.
Which is fine, laudable, noble even. That is very different from the OP ask about proving the sufficiency of Scripture. This does not address that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tradidi
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I may be able to help here; if nothing else, I hope & pray to add a useful & respectful angle to this discussion.

Throughout the entire Bible, people go to the religious authorities to understand the final meaning of Scripture. Since Acts has been brought up more than any other book in this discussion so far, we will work with Acts.

Consider Chapter 15. There is a lot to discuss about this chapter, but the most relevant point to this discussion plays out in verses 1-2:

"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question." (NIV)
Scripture was surely being argued in this debate. Indeed, verse 5 tells us that converted Pharisees were arguing in favor of mandatory circumcision. While the Pharisees are often demonized for lack of love, they knew the Scriptures better than any of us, and Jesus even told His disciples about their position as a teaching authority, even if they didn't live what they taught:

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." --Matthew 23:2-3, NIV
In Acts, we see a transition of authority, from the Pharisees before the Christian Church was founded, to the Church authorities, who were in Jerusalem at this point in history. Both sides were using Scripture to figure out what should be done, yet they came to disagreements. How should this be resolved? By going to the ones who held authority to give the final word on Scriptures.

Two points on this:
  1. The Council of Jerusalem happened before Acts was written. This is easy enough to prove; how can you write about a meeting before the meeting had taken place? The strong implication here is, Church authority was already established before this piece of Scripture was written. Nowhere in the Bible definitively declared circumcision to no longer be necessary, yet this Council could give a definitive declaration, which was only later recorded in the Bible.
  2. The more fundamental point--where does the Bible tell us what books belong in the Bible? Nowhere. We trust Church authority every time we pick up a Bible. 1 Timothy, Revelation, Acts, everything that has been brought up in this discussion is based on a decision made in the 4th Century, later edited in the 16th century. The groundwork for how to determine what books are truly "inspired" by the Spirit, to function as something that can be trusted as the Word of God, is nowhere in Scripture.
I hope this helps us reach an agreement, or at least get a little more thoughtful about our responses to this legitimate question of authority. Let me know if you want any more clarification!

And if you want to see Point 2 in more detail, I already have a very relevant thread for that: Why I Choose Catholic Christianity

May God bless us with peace and good discussions!:pray:


What bible verse can you give to defend this point? Furthermore, why would only apply to Paul's writings, as opposed to other books that were not considered canonical?
You would need to abandon your entire religion if I'm right.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Well I agree. Scriptures are sufficient to give us all we need to live lives pleasing to God. If not in direct words, then we can draw application from them.

Example. The bible says nothing about obeying speed limits. But it does say to obey governing authorities- so we as believers should follow the speed limits (oops, I'm guilty often)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
which is a position anyone is free to take, just dont claim it is biblical.

It is biblical. There is nothing outside of Scripture that first isn't found in Scripture that will lead a person to salvation!
 
Upvote 0