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

[pescador]

Sola scriptura means to most people the application of sola scriptura. Since faith without works is dead, the theoretical idea of sola scriptura is meaningless.

Do you even know what sola scriptura means? Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority. It has nothing to do with works.

 

[Albion]

Sola scriptura means to most people the application of sola scriptura. Since faith without works is dead, the theoretical idea of sola scriptura is meaningless.

Huh?

 

[Albion]

Without application, the scriptures are insufficient.

I suppose so, but no one said that the Scriptures aren't to be applied. If anything, Sola Scriptura is an appeal TO apply Scripture (as opposed to applying less authoritative sources of information to doctrinal issues).

What is learned from applying the scripture steers the interpretation of the scripture, thus scripture by itself is not sufficient.

Why not?

 

[Athanasius377]

Irrelevant to the claim in the OP.

Incorrect. It is absolutely is relevant to the topic at hand. One of the claims scripture makes about itself is that is breathed out by God. It's one of the properties scripture possesses and as a result is one of the reasons the Scriptures are sufficient as the Rule of Faith.

There is.

As some have already pointed out, when Paul told Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired", he could not have meant "the 66 books that Luther will one day declare to be Scripture", simply because they were not all written yet. In fact, at some point we even see Paul himself doubting whether his own writings were inspired. Instead, Paul was talking about the nature of Scripture: "If or when we come across a book that is Scripture, then we know that it is inspired", in other words: "every book whose nature is Scripture is inspired, both the ones we already have, and the ones that will be written after me [Paul]".

Agree?

A simple, clear and direct answer would greatly facilitate this debate.

Maybe. I agree that Paul is speaking of the of all scripture regardless of when it was written and that it does goes to the very nature of scripture itself. Scripture is Scripture from the very moment it comes into existence. Though I'm not sure how this is supposed to help your case.


So I ask again, what else does the church possess that is:

1. God Breathed
2. Profitable in
a. teaching
b. reproof, or rebuking
c. correction, or correcting faults
d. training in righteousness
3. with the result that the man of God may be:
a. complete
b. equipped for every good work.

How is that not sufficient as a rule of faith?


2 Ti 3:16–17
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.

 

[Ann77]

Hey, when you get a minute, can you post the scripture saying "scripture should be one's sole authority"? Thx.

All of Jesus' and the apostles infallible instructions that we know of, we know of from a book.

And the apostles did instruct us that the scriptures are sufficient to serve in the role in question:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Athanasius377]

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?

Where is this ONLY argument coming from. Who said that?

 

[Dale]

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.

What is the alternative to believing the Bible?

Is there a latin phrase for "We believe the Bishop, no matter what."

 

[chevyontheriver]

And the Catholic church doesn't put their own interpretation of Scripture out there as truth? And they don't have a whole bunch of man-made traditions? Give me a break!!

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.

 

[chevyontheriver]

A third possibility, and the one with the most value, is that Scripture is sufficient. Even if people interpret it differently, that doesn't diminish the truths of God found only in the Bible.

But if it IS sufficient, then how does it work that it is insufficient for thousands of denominations that can't manage to find the sufficiency of Scripture. The evidence is that they can't agree. Obviously your denomination has it figured out exactly so, and Scripture IS sufficient for your guys but all the other ones, well, it isn't sufficient for them. How is that? What does sufficiency mean when it's so rare?

 

[DamianWarS]

Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with Sola Scriptura.

It had to do with your comment. The SS part comes in when the church no longer is the keeper of Scripture. Because of the printing press, critical printed greek text, translations, corruption or the church etc... did you forget that already?

 

[Radagast]

Sola scriptura means to most people the application of sola scriptura. Since faith without works is dead, the theoretical idea of sola scriptura is meaningless.

Huh?

That made zero sense. Try this:

We believe
that this Holy Scripture contains
the will of God completely
and that everything one must believe
to be saved
is sufficiently taught in it.

For since the entire manner of service
which God requires of us
is described in it at great length,
no one —
even an apostle
or an angel from heaven,
as Paul says (Galatians 1:8) —
ought to teach other than
what the Holy Scriptures have
already taught us.

For since it is forbidden
to add to the Word of God,
or take anything away from it (Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19),
it is plainly demonstrated
that the teaching is perfect
and complete in all respects.

Therefore we must not consider human writings —
no matter how holy their authors may have been —
equal to the divine writings;
nor may we put custom,
nor the majority,
nor age,
nor the passage of times or persons,
nor councils, decrees, or official decisions
above the truth of God,
for truth is above everything else.

For all human beings are liars by nature
and more vain than vanity itself.

Therefore we reject with all our hearts
everything that does not agree
with this infallible rule,
as we are taught to do by the apostles
when they say,
“Test the spirits
to see whether they are from God,” (1 John 4:1)
and also,
“Do not receive into the house
or welcome anyone
who comes to you
and does not bring this teaching.” (2 John 1:10)

 

[chevyontheriver]

What is the alternative to believing the Bible?

That's a cute straw man way of putting it.

Is there a latin phrase for "We believe the Bishop, no matter what."

We could invent a Latin phrase for that I suppose. Whatever you want. I'm rusty enough that I couldn't just wing the translation though.

The alternative to pretending that everything you believe is fresh out of the Bible is found here: EWTN Global Catholic Television Network: Catholic News, TV, Radio | EWTN

 

[mmksparbud]

But if it IS sufficient, then how does it work that it is insufficient for thousands of denominations that can't manage to find the sufficiency of Scripture. The evidence is that they can't agree. Obviously your denomination has it figured out exactly so, and Scripture IS sufficient for your guys but all the other ones, well, it isn't sufficient for them. How is that? What does sufficiency mean when it's so rare?

The one that decides what is truth is God, not man. And it is He who will determine who has believed a lie of man, or has believed the truth of the word of God. Even the disciples did not interpret the scri8ptures correctly, nor did most Jews at the time, or they would have known Him whom came to be the Lamb of God. Jesus took the disciples through those scriptures, and opened their eyes to what was there that they had not seen. So it is with us today, the scriptures are there, they say the truth, but it is the eyes of men that read them, and not always through the Spirit of the Lord and end up believing, not what the scriptures say, but what men say it means. We believe what men say because we want to, and because more often than not, it is an easier path to follow. Narrow is the way, and few want that path and take the broader one presented by man. He will determine who is following His word and has been persuaded by the words of men.
The final and only autho9rity as to what is believed, and who has believed the truth and who has not--0-is Gd

 

[DamianWarS]

Exactly.

Yes, the church got it wrong on some aspects of its teachings, but, show me any 'religion' 'organisation' etc etc that is and always has been 100% perfect.

The church has weathered many a rough storm since its inception but, with Jesus at the helm, its always going to get back on course!

Since the reformation 1,000's of Sola Scriptura faiths / churches have sprouted up. Each claiming only they know the truth! Each, like rudderless boats in a vast ocean, not knowing where they are going!

The church of the 15th/16th century is different than today and has largely reformed from with in. What do you suppose kept it in check? The church is like a pendulum swinging out too far and needing to be brought back in. The 7 ecumenical Council for example may be examples of bringing it back in. SS and the reformation has played a role in bringing the church back in from swinging out too far. Or using your analogy was rudderless and SS became a ruder of the church even if it rejects it and it still is because the church can no long swing out like it did. Without the events of the 16th century would we even have an English Bible?

 

[concretecamper]

Where is this ONLY argument coming from. Who said that?

umm.... Sola

 

[concretecamper]

Now we get to see the protestants argue about SS, and you wonder why non SS adherents are confused

 

[concretecamper]

You say that there is another one. I know that. Bunches of them, in fact.

What I asked, however, was whether there was another one referred to in Scripture. There isn't. If there is no other, then there is only one.

I'm sorry, what do you mean?

 

[concretecamper]

I had just hoped that people who do not know what Sola Scriptura is would come to understand what they are attacking, whether or not they agree with it.

you mean agree with your definition?

I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Catholics often say that critics of their church have been misinformed about the Eucharist or the Papacy or the saints, etc. and that's why they think some teaching is wrong, and, as a result, are attacking a misconception they've been taught by somebody or just arrived at by themselves.

just have a coherent explanation of SS, admit is a belief that ain't scriptural, and all will be good.

They are always told that they need to get the facts before criticizing them. Our topic here--Sola Scriptura--is in the same category.

it is. But you all had better come to a consensus of what SS means. Also, be able to provide biblical proof instead of opinions.

Listen, we are all ok with opinions, just dont claim SS is biblical and you'll be off the hook.

 

[Albion]

It had to do with your comment. The SS part comes in when the church no longer is the keeper of Scripture. Because of the printing press, critical printed greek text, translations, corruption or the church etc... did you forget that already?

No, but it's not what Sola Scriptura is all about.

Every time some member goes off the subject (Sola Scriptura) we have to point it out, and I'm sorry if this seems impolite, but Sola Scriptura as a sufficient rule of faith is the topic.

It's not how many people have access to a Bible, how different readers who do have one come up with different interpretations, or whether there are other matters of religious importance which, however, are not matters of essential doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is much more straightforward and focused than most critics think.

 

[Fidelibus]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that 1,000's of Sola Scriptura faiths / churches [whatever that means] have sprouted up.

It's very easy to find out. Don't know what town or city you live in, but all you have to do is google (or the yellow pages, ha-ha) Christian churches (Protestant, non-denominational, home churches, ect..excluding Catholic Churches that are in full communion with the Pope) in your area, and multiply that with all the cities, towns and villages throughout the globe. What do you think the figure might be? I would be willing to bet that the number would be..... not in the thousands, but in the tens of thousands, with just as many intrepretations of Scripture, all claiming that they are teaching the truth under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

The source of all truth is God and His Word (The Bible).

As a Sola Scripturist, could you cite the Scripture passage that states this?

(if not, see ! Tim.3;15)

The teachings and behavior of men, including the Pope, are contradictory, fallible, and sometimes dangerous.

Say's who? Scripture? If so, please cite passage. If you can not, would you agree that what you claim here is nothing more than your own fallible opinion and is subject to error/ In other words...... you could be wrong? If you believe you are not, or could not be in error, please tell us how or why.


Have a Blessed Day