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

[Tradidi]

Because scripture is the only God Breathed source we have

Yes. Based on the OT and apostolic teaching that was later recorded for us in the NT But again you asked if SS was sufficient to function as a rule of faith.

By the way, thank you once again, because you have just admitted that there is another Rule of Faith: the Old Testament and Apostolic Tradition.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I agree.

And something I don't think a lot of Protestants take the time to consider is the fact that the Church can (and did) exist without Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible". Rather, a lot of Protestants seem to view the Bible as a sort of constitution upon which the Church is founded. I have to wonder if their fundamental misunderstanding of the Church's origin isn't a major factor in their fundamental misunderstanding of what Sacred Scripture is and what it isn't.

The Church has never existed without the scriptures. God's people before the time of JESUS had the old testament scriptures of the Word of God. At the times of Jesus and the Apostles their bible was the old testament scriptures. The new testament scriptures are the recorded words of Jesus and the Apotles that the old testament pointed to. God's people (the Church) have always had Gods' Word in the beginning through the spoken Word of God, then from Mt Sinai to this present day the spoken and written Word of God and God's people having the written Word of God to this present day. The new testament does not contradict the old testament scriptures they are a fulfillment of them.

 

[Radagast]

Thank you. If the first Christians were fully equipped, and we both agree they were, then it follows that the New Testament Scriptures were "additional equipment" and not "essential equipment". Correct?

Not correct.

The very first Christians were equipped with living eyewitnesses of the Resurrection.

Second Century and later Christians were equipped with written records of eyewitnesses of the Resurrection.

 

[Tradidi]

No. That’s what you are trying to make me say. A variation colors sidestep of the issue and thus creating a strawman. I said Paul said “all” scripture. You are trying to get me to agree to something other than scripture. But again the verse says.
2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV): 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.

that is sufficient for a rule of faith. “All” no matter how much you wish that the word isn’t there.

Do you mean you take back your previous agreement that the first Christians were fully equipped? Because if they were fully equipped, then how can anything else not be optional? Please explain.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The church you are a part of is unrecognizable from its simple origins

It's been 2,000 years. Christianity started as a hated, persecuted minority in the most powerful empire in history and went on to become the dominant cultural force in the western world, bar none.

If you refer to superficialities then I would be shocked if an organization with the Church's history didn't look different after all that.

And yet, the Early Church Fathers believed in and taught something that is unmistakably Catholic. They believed many things that Protestants today wholeheartedly reject.

Forgive me for saying this. But I think Protestant institutions resemble the Early Church far less than the modern Catholic Church does.

and your membership of this doesn't invoke some free pass

I have never said otherwise. What my membership offers me is the sacraments and the fullness of truth given only to the Catholic Church; nothing more, nothing less.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Do you mean you take back your previous agreement that the first Christians were fully equipped? Because if they were fully equipped, then how can anything else not be optional? Please explain.

The first Christian were fully equiped with the Word of God (scriptures) and the living Word of God (Jesus - John 1:1-4; 14). The new testament scriptures are the recorded words of Jesus (God) and the Apotles which are a fulfillemnt of the old testament which pointed to Jesus and God's plan of salvation in the new covenant. God's people (the Church) have always had Gods' Word in the beginning through the spoken Word of God, then from Mt Sinai to this present day the spoken and written Word of God and God's people having the written Word of God to this present day. The new testament does not contradict the old testament scriptures they are a fulfillment of them.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The Church has never existed without the scriptures. God's people before the time of JESUS had the old testament scriptures of the Word of God. At the times of Jesus and the Apostles their bible was the old testament scriptures. The new testament scriptures are the recorded words of Jesus and the Apotles that the old testament pointed to. God's people (the Church) have always had Gods' Word in the beginning through the spoken Word of God, then from Mt Sinai to this present day the spoken and written Word of God and God's people having the written Word of God to this present day. The new testament does not contradict the old testament scriptures they are a fulfillment of them.

This entire post is an attempt to frame the issue.

The Church started life without all of Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible". Your straw man post above does not change that fact.

 

[Tradidi]

Not correct.

The very first Christians were equipped with living eyewitnesses of the Resurrection.

Second Century and later Christians were equipped with written records of eyewitnesses of the Resurrection.

Same problem.

1. When the eyewitnesses were alive, the Rule of Faith would have been: OT Scripture and NT Oral Tradition.

2. When the eyewitnesses died, the Rule of Faith would have been: OT Scripture and NT Written Tradition.

3. When the last eyewitnesses had died, and the Church canonised the Bible, the Rule of Faith would have become: OT Scripture and "some" NT Written Tradition, i.e. NT Scripture

It's a novel theory, but not very Scriptural, and certainly not very practical considering to start with there was only ONE copy of each book of the Scriptures to go all around Christendom!

If Christ intended His Church to be based on a Book, He certainly picked a very bad and impractical business model.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The first Christian were fully equiped with the Word of God (scriptures) and the living Word of God (Jesus - John 1:1-4; 14). The new testament scriptures are the recorded words of Jesus (God) and the Apotles which are a fulfillemnt of the old testament which pointed to Jesus and God's plan of salvation in the new covenant. God's people (the Church) have always had Gods' Word in the beginning through the spoken Word of God, then from Mt Sinai to this present day the spoken and written Word of God and God's people having the written Word of God to this present day. The new testament does not contradict the old testament scriptures they are a fulfillment of them.

Your response here...

This entire post is an attempt to frame the issue. The Church started life without all of Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible". Your straw man post above does not change that fact.

Not at all dear color. The post is simply stating that Gods' people have always had scripture sufficient for salvation. Even your friend agrees with this although his application is to the old testament scriptures when discussing Timothy. This argument that Timothy (new testament scripture) does not have application to JESUS and the Apsotles in my opinion however is a contradiction as it is like trying to argue that Jesus is not God and his Words are not inspired and the writings of the Apostles after the death of Jesus are not inspired scripture (whole new testament) which is obviously nonsense as Jesus is the Word of God that the old and new testament scriptures point to.

 

[Radagast]

Same problem.

1. When the eyewitnesses were alive, the Rule of Faith would have been: OT Scripture and NT Oral Tradition.

2. When the eyewitnesses died, the Rule of Faith would have been: OT Scripture and NT Written Tradition.

3. When the last eyewitnesses had died, and the Church canonised the Bible, the Rule of Faith would have become: OT Scripture and "some" NT Written Tradition, i.e. NT Scripture

I'm not buying your distinction between "NT Written Tradition" and "NT Scripture" in the least.

What Apostolic "NT Written Tradition" do you think got left out of "NT Scripture"?

If Christ intended His Church to be based on a Book, He certainly picked a very bad and impractical business model.

Says you.

 

[Tradidi]

I'm not buying your distinction between "NT Written Tradition" and "NT Scripture" in the least.

It wasn't for sale

What Apostolic "NT Written Tradition" do you think got left out of "NT Scripture"?

Are you asking for an index? How's that relevant to the argument?

 

[Radagast]

Are you asking for an index? How's that relevant to the argument?

You can't name a single book. That's what I thought.

Because "Apostolic NT Written Tradition" and "NT Scripture" are exactly the same thing.

 

[DamianWarS]

It's been 2,000 years. Christianity started as a hated, persecuted minority in the most powerful empire in history and went on to become the dominant cultural force in the western world, bar none.

If you refer to superficialities then I would be shocked if an organization with the Church's history didn't look different after all that.

And yet, the Early Church Fathers believed in and taught something that is unmistakably Catholic. They believed many things that Protestants today wholeheartedly reject.

Forgive me for saying this. But I think Protestant institutions resemble the Early Church far less than the modern Catholic Church does.

I have never said otherwise. What my membership offers me is the sacraments and the fullness of truth given only to the Catholic Church; nothing more, nothing less.

The Catholic Church (big "C" ) is an evolved version of its origins (small "c") It has pivoted many times and turned itself into a version of the original but no longer the original. Looking at the early church Fathers and saying this is Catholic is no more relevant than a Jew looking at Abraham and saying this is Jewish. Going back far enough every Christian has a converging point and it's arbitrary to call it uniquely yours when all Christians carry the same DNA. Critical evaluation is responsible stewardship but you seem to indicate because it's Catholic it's off the table but everyone else is on the chopping block. This "us" and "them" way of approaching faith seems counter-gospel to me.

 

[Athanasius377]

By the way, thank you once again, because you have just admitted that there is another Rule of Faith: the Old Testament and Apostolic Tradition.

That is history friend. And it was what I quoted to colorsblend some 50 posts ago because there were other rules of faith. Yet here we go again by trying to shoehorn some amorphous tradition that no one can point to as opposed to apostolic tradition which was recorded for us. That tradition is called the NT.

In case you missed it:

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.

 

[Athanasius377]

Do you mean you take back your previous agreement that the first Christians were fully equipped? Because if they were fully equipped, then how can anything else not be optional? Please explain.

Once again. We are not saying there was not a time when scripture existed in oral form. So yes, the first century christian was fully equipped.

 

[Hawkins]

Claim: "The Scriptures are sufficient to function as a Rule of Faith."

Challenge: Prove it!

Sola Scriptura is rather the denial of the RCC authority in the same way as how the Jewish authority is denied by Christians. If a human authority went corrupt and can no longer be the earthly representative of God, this authority will be replaced.

The proof is that,
OT is the testimony of the Jews. Its canonization thus belongs to the Jews. The Jews went through King Hezekiah, Ezra and etc. to have the OT Bible canonized and well guarded by the Pharisees till AD 70. It is the Jews' testimonies and legitimately canonized by the Jews. The Jews thus have a correct OT Canon

NT is the testimony of the Apostles. It's legitimately canonized by Christians after human authority being transferred from the Jews to Christians. Christians thus have a correct NT Canon.

Today, only the Protestants can have both a correct OT and NT Canon.

 

[Athanasius377]

It's a novel theory, but not very Scriptural, and certainly not very practical considering to start with there was only ONE copy of each book of the Scriptures to go all around Christendom!

If Christ intended His Church to be based on a Book, He certainly picked a very bad and impractical business model.

That's why He's God. Scripture has a supernatural source. And don't discount the use of the many Scriptorium in the ancient world. We. can show the origin of the NT but you are unable to show us the source of tradition. I just thought of a real world example of the different rules of faith in action. Because the notion that tradition and scripture together with the magisterium are superior why is there a chasm between these two men:

but not these two men (SS as a rule of faith) all separated by about a 100 years.

.

And don't try and tell me Pius X taught the same doctrine as Francis because we both know that is not true. In fact you going to have a hard time convincing me they are members of the same church. Yet the men on the bottom most certainly teach the same doctrine. (CFW Walter and Matthew Harrison past and current president of the LCMS).

 

[dms1972]

I agree there is a misunderstanding in this thread of what Sola Scriptura means.

Here is a helpful article on it:

The Real Meaning of Sola Scriptura - The Gospel Coalition | Australia

 

[Randy777]

That's why He's God. Scripture has a supernatural source. And don't discount the use of the many Scriptorium in the ancient world. We. can show the origin of the NT but you are unable to show us the source of tradition. I just thought of a real world example of the different rules of faith in action. Because the notion that tradition and scripture together with the magisterium are superior why is there a chasm between these two men:

but not these two men (SS as a rule of faith) all separated by about a 100 years.

.

And don't try and tell me Pius X taught the same doctrine as Francis because we both know that is not true. In fact you going to have a hard time convincing me they are members of the same church. Yet the men on the bottom most certainly teach the same doctrine. (CFW Walter and Matthew Harrison past and current president of the LCMS).

Your close to the heart of the matter. Apostolic Succession. One who has given authority from above. I myself don't hold to Apostolic succession. There is none today who has authority from above to add or take away from the writings/teachings given in the NT. Leaders that are appointed should be held accountable to truths found in the NT. As in a faithful following of the teachings of Christ Jesus and the Apostles. The source of any doctrine should be supported by scripture. To me there is nothing new from above.

 

[redleghunter]

The Church started life without all of Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible".

Now that is a strawman.