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

[chevyontheriver]

For the umpteenth time, Sola Scriptura is about the nature of Scripture, not how somebody interprets it.

More precisely, it is that Scripture is unequalled by anything else when it comes to essential doctrine.

So what good is the sufficiency of Scripture if what you say is true? If Scripture is sufficient but almost every end user interprets Scripture wrong, how do you all get to that essential doctrine? Somebody gets it wrong. Lots of somebodies get it wrong. The common sense question would then be how Scripture is sufficient if it really practically isn't.

 

[Fidelibus]

To recap:

You said there is no Bible verse that says Scripture is the only authority.

I replied that there is no Bible verse that refers to any other.

If there is no other...or if no other one can be found in the authority that we all agree upon and which comes from God himself...

then, we must conclude that there is, in fact, that one and only that one.

And here we are, 8 pages and 148 posts. You know Albion, you seem to be a pretty intelligent person.Well, it seems to me that you could have nipped this thread in the bud several pages ago. How? Simply by showing a Scripture passage that concretecamper has been asking for, over and over and over again (for example, from page 3, post #45....("EVERYONE TRUST SCRIPTURE! You can now point to the part where it says ONLY!") It seems very simple.... if there is a Scripture passage that say's this.....show it, prove us Catholics wrong, once and for all! If you can not.....simply admit "there is no such passage in Scripture that say's this." Which is it?


Have a Blessed day

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

Dear friend. Your asking the question is scripture sufficient as a rule of faith? Well of course it is. It is the only rule of faith. When the bible uses the term "the faith" it is talking about the teachings of the Word of God as faith comes by hearing and hearing by the very Word of God. If one denies the Word of God they deny "the faith" and to deny "the faith" (the Word of God) is to deny salvation which is only received by faith as we believe and follow God's Word. There is no faith if there is no Word and if no faith only sin and sin will keep all those who practice it out of God's kingdom. Our salvation is by faith in the very word of God that this thread claims is not sufficient. Therefore what is being taught here is against the faith in my view and another Gospel which is not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the last days we are warned that many will depart "the faith" (the teachings of the Word of God) before Jesus returns. Something for everyone to consider and pray about.

 

[Albion]

Scripture
Reason
Tradition
Experience

All influencing each other.

"All influencing..." Yes, and we need to be careful about how that is explained.

It is not that these three or four are equal. Rather, it's Scripture that is divine revelation, and we UNDERSTAND the Scriptures with the assistance of our reasoning faculties and see them through the lenses of tradition and (for Methodists) experience.

But they are not four versions of the same thing.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Jesus spent 3 years explaining the scriptures---His word is scripture, His words are truth. He is niot an outside source---He is the source.

I'll run with that for a moment. We know that not everything that Jesus said has been recorded in written Scripture. We know that because written Scripture actually says exactly that. So we have all of these words of Jesus that you regard very highly but have not been recorded in written Scripture. Where is it? The words Jesus gave to his apostles that didn't get written down in Scripture? Where'd they go?

 

[Radagast]

Scripture
Reason
Tradition
Experience

That raises 6 questions:

1. On the basis of reason, can we contradict Scripture in matters of faith?

2. On the basis of reason, can we add to Scripture in matters of faith?

3. On the basis of tradition, can we contradict Scripture in matters of faith?

4. On the basis of tradition, can we add to Scripture in matters of faith?

5. On the basis of experience, can we contradict Scripture in matters of faith?

6. On the basis of experience, can we add to Scripture in matters of faith?

Sola Scriptura says "no" to all six questions, with some provisos (obviously an illogical reading of Scripture must be wrong, and readings of Scripture that contradict established church teaching must be subject to extremely careful scrutiny).

Catholics say "yes" to (at least) #4, since there are several Catholic dogmas not found in Scripture.

 

[Albion]

So what good is the sufficiency of Scripture if what you say is true? If Scripture is sufficient but almost every end user interprets Scripture wrong, how do you all get to that essential doctrine?

Well, how do we get to essential doctrine with some manmade guideposts instead? First, it is necessary to identify wherein lies the information that is essential to our salvation. That done, we discuss how to interpret it. We cannot do that in some other order.

And also, there is no reason to throw up our arms and say that no one can know what the Bible means! And certainly not because some people get it wrong. They're just incorrect, that's all.

Lots of somebodies get it wrong. The common sense question would then be how Scripture is sufficient if it really practically isn't.

But if anyone gets it right, then it has worked.

The people who are in cults or come up with some goofy ideas from who knows where do not mean that everyone else has to be wrong also.

 

[Radagast]

The people who are in cults or come up with some goofy ideas from who knows where

Invariably, those cults deny Sola Scriptura, giving the writings of their founder greater weight than Scripture.

 

[Albion]

I'll run with that for a moment. We know that not everything that Jesus said has been recorded in written Scripture. We know that because written Scripture actually says exactly that. So we have all of these words of Jesus that you regard very highly but have not been recorded in written Scripture. Where is it? The words Jesus gave to his apostles that didn't get written down in Scripture? Where'd they go?

The verse you did not mention follows immediately upon that one you are referring to and answers your question.

The something else that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples is not necessary for us to know; and that's said to be for the reason that what IS in Scripture is sufficient!!

John 20:30-31

 

[Radagast]

The verse you did not mention follows immediately upon that one you are referring to and answers your question.

The something else that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples is not necessary for us to know; and that's said to be for the reason that what IS in Scripture is sufficient!!

John 20:30-31: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[mmksparbud]

I'll run with that for a moment. We know that not everything that Jesus said has been recorded in written Scripture. We know that because written Scripture actually says exactly that. So we have all of these words of Jesus that you regard very highly but have not been recorded in written Scripture. Where is it? The words Jesus gave to his apostles that didn't get written down in Scripture? Where'd they go?

LOL! 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 or our salvation . Sufficient---enough. Same thing, actually. Well, technically, we may have only 7/8 of a cup---it is however, enough to make a recipe requiring 1 cup. The problem lies in using just the 7/8 of a cup, and what we are doing to fill it up to that 1 cup. 1 cup may be what is needed, but 7/8 is sufficient to accomplish the task. You can add tomato juice to it, but that will change the whole thing. It might work, it may even taste good, but the flavor will be totally different from what it's supposed to be. So what happened to the rest oif the 1/8 cup?---Doesn't matter, the 7/8 is enough.

 

[thecolorsblend]

True except the definition was given in the OP to avoid this confusion.

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"?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Scripture
Reason
Tradition
Experience

All influencing each other.
Tradition determines the scope of Scripture, Scripture is primary - it is sufficient, but apprehended through Reason, and Experience plays a part in this too, though the Anglican Hooker said experience was part of REASON.

In the 60's Albert Outlet designated Wesley' s quadrilateral

What you describe looks rather like "prima scriptura".

 

[chevyontheriver]

But if anyone gets it right, then it has worked.

So you got it exactly right, the only one to do so, and everybody else got it wrong, and Scripture is sufficient? What about those other guys who think you got it wrong, and that Scripture is sufficient for them? You both agree that Scripture is sufficient but when it comes down to it you can't agree on what Scripture means. How does that work? You can dismiss all of the other guys as cultists but it looks a bit thin after a while.

 

[Tra Phull]

"prima scripture" I first heard the term in this thread

MAGISTERIUM is a term I guess both Catholics and Orthodox use.

So which of the MAGISTERII is correct?

 

[Ann77]

Can you show me the scripture that describes and prescribes "sola scriptura"? Thx!

Your question proves the infallible authority of Scripture alone when you're asking me to go to it for proof. We see that Paul directed Timothy to the Scriptures alone as the source of his ability to do everything God called Timothy to do in the church.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The verse you did not mention follows immediately upon that one you are referring to and answers your question.

The something else that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples is not necessary for us to know; and that's said to be for the reason that what IS in Scripture is sufficient!!

The other guy was making a slightly different point, that every word Jesus uttered was Scripture. So, if that were so, I wanted to know where he thought those words are in written Scripture. He said every word of Jesus was Scripture. I just asked where it went.

I think the words of Jesus are revelation, but that Scripture is a written thing. I was exploring what he thought Scripture was.

 

[Tradidi]

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"?

Astute observation.

If anyone can finally pull the long promised and eagerly awaited rabbit out of his hat to prove that "Scripture is sufficient to function as a Rule of Faith", then I am sure the audience will expect an encore and ask him to show us that "Scripture is the only possible Rule of Faith".

But at this stage it looks like we won't need to worry about the encore. We're still listening to the rolling of the drums.

 

[Tra Phull]

Back to Wesleyan Quadrilateral.
It's a stool. Scripture is the seat.
Three legs support it.
Scripture is primary, the other three aid in understanding it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

LOL! 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 or our salvation . Sufficient---enough. Same thing, actually. Well, technically, we may have only 7/8 of a cup---it is however, enough to make a recipe requiring 1 cup. The problem lies in using just the 7/8 of a cup, and what we are doing to fill it up to that 1 cup. 1 cup may be what is needed, but 7/8 is sufficient to accomplish the task. You can add tomato juice to it, but that will change the whole thing. It might work, it may even taste good, but the flavor will be totally different from what it's supposed to be. So what happened to the rest oif the 1/8 cup?---Doesn't matter, the 7/8 is enough.

So there are words of Jesus you called Scripture but aren't in written Scripture. I would say they are revelation but not Scripture, and that as they were heard by the apostles in their formation in the faith, have become part of the faith. That's what Tradition is. Jesus didn't waste his words. We have been given the whole cup, in different containers. Seven parts of eight isn't bad, and for most people only a few verses would do, but the whole cup is necessary for the Church as a whole to function.