Sola Scriptura defined....

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

....ask away


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Neostarwcc]

Good Day,

....ask away


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

In Him,

Bill

Good post. I agree.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Interesting. I've discovered yet another definition of sola scriptura. Most curious.

Some people who believe in sola scriptura define it such that any religious practice/belief is permitted so long as it isn't forbidden by scripture. Are they wrong?

Other people who believe in sola scriptura define it such that only religious practices/beliefs affirmed by scripture are permissible. Are they wrong?

 

[De_Maria]

Good Day,

Good day, Bill.

....ask away

Thanks.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail....

Agreed.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth."....

Agree with that, as well.

.... The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Do we discover the Church in Scripture? Or do we discover Scripture in the Church?

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2,...

Not really. Let's focus on that for a minute. What was St. Paul doing?

He was essentially following the example of Jesus Christ on the Road to Emmaus. He was proving that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, from the Old Testament Scriptures.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Jesus proved Christian Teaching from the Scriptures. But Christian Teaching was not yet written down in the New Testament. Thus, He was passing down Tradition. the very same Tradition that St. Paul was passing down in Acts 17:2.

and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

But St. John didn't use Scripture to test them.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

Agreed.

What then is sola scriptura?.... All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source....

Where does it say that in Scripture? I know that Scripture says that this was written down that you might believe. But where does Scripture say that one must only believe what is in Scripture? In fact, I think Scripture contradicts that in these words:

Rom 10:4 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

Where is that found in Scripture? Scripture actually says:

Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation

In Him,

Bill

May we all be, In Him,

De Maria

 

[BBAS 64]

Interesting. I've discovered yet another definition of sola scriptura. Most curious.

Some people who believe in sola scriptura define it such that any religious practice/belief is permitted so long as it isn't forbidden by scripture. Are they wrong?

Other people who believe in sola scriptura define it such that only religious practices/beliefs affirmed by scripture are permissible. Are they wrong?

Good Day,

Well there ya go...

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, Bill.



Thanks.



Agreed.



Agree with that, as well.



Do we discover the Church in Scripture? Or do we discover Scripture in the Church?

Really good question not that it is related in any way to historical doctrine of SS.

Both depending on how you define the church. Seeing scripture is the word of God consigned to writing and he has always know what his canon is, was and will be. His canon has been revealed to his people ( Jews/ and the church) respectively.

Not really. Let's focus on that for a minute. What was St. Paul doing?

He was essentially following the example of Jesus Christ on the Road to Emmaus. He was proving that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, from the Old Testament Scriptures.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Jesus proved Christian Teaching from the Scriptures. But Christian Teaching was not yet written down in the New Testament. Thus, He was passing down Tradition. the very same Tradition that St. Paul was passing down in Acts 17:2.?

Agreed the OT given to the Jews where the breathed out words of God. Jesus used that to prove his teaching to be truth... The NT Acts 17:2 reasoned from scripture the OT god breathed out words of the Jews ... very consistent.

Agreed.



Where does it say that in Scripture? I know that Scripture says that this was written down that you might believe. But where does Scripture say that one must only believe what is in Scripture? In fact, I think Scripture contradicts that in these words:

Rom 10:4 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?



Where is that found in Scripture? Scripture actually says:

Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation



May we all be, In Him,

De Maria

In context Rom. 10:14 is connected with 10:11 which set the (OT) scriptural basis of the teaching very consistent.


For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."

In Him,

Bill

 

[De_Maria]

Really good question not that it is related in any way to historical doctrine of SS.

I asked several questions. Are you talking about this one?

You said:

What then is sola scriptura?.... All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source....

My question:

Where does it say that in Scripture? I know that Scripture says that this was written down that you might believe. But where does Scripture say that one must only believe what is in Scripture? In fact, I think Scripture contradicts that in these words:

Rom 10:4 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

That question is precisely to the point of historical SS.

Both depending on how you define the church. Seeing scripture is the word of God consigned to writing and he has always know what his canon is, was and will be. His canon has been revealed to his people ( Jews/ and the church) respectively.

In both cases, the people of God came before the Scripture. First God chose the Jews and gave them a Law. Then, they wrote Scripture through many centuries. First Jesus Christ established the Church. Then He commanded the Church to Teach His Word. Then the Church wrote the New Testament.

Agreed the OT given to the Jews where the breathed out words of God. Jesus used that to prove his teaching to be truth... The NT Acts 17:2 reasoned from scripture the OT god breathed out words of the Jews ... very consistent.

You're ignoring the Words of Christ. It is these words which were being passed down by the Church in the person of the Apostles. Do you believe that Jesus' words are the Word of God? Yes or no.

In context Rom. 10:14 is connected with 10:11 which set the (OT) scriptural basis of the teaching very consistent.

You're reading into that verse, your presuppositions. Neither verse says anything about Scripture alone. In fact, the context is the mutual dependence of Sacred Tradition and Scripture. A dependence which is emphasized in 2 Thess 2:15.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."

Sooo...you don't say that? Must you read that in Scripture in order to know that Truth?

May we all remain, in Him,

De Maria

 

[thecolorsblend]

You're reading into that verse, your presuppositions. Neither verse says anything about Scripture alone. In fact, the context is the mutual dependence of Sacred Tradition and Scripture. A dependence which is emphasized in 2 Thess 2:15.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I must say that was one of several passages that challenged me back when I was adrift in the Southern Baptist world. I never found a satisfactory explanation that didn't implicitly or even explicitly affirm the Magisterium in some way or another.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So now I'm Catholic.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Good Day,

....ask away


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

In Him,

Bill

"Thy Word is truth" (John 17.17), the words of the Lord Jesus.

 

[De_Maria]

I must say that was one of several passages that challenged me back when I was adrift in the Southern Baptist world. I never found a satisfactory explanation that didn't implicitly or even explicitly affirm the Magisterium in some way or another.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So now I'm Catholic.

I came back after a long stint in atheism. And when I was comparing religions, I learned the wisdom of a Magisterium. Have you ever tried to find the true meaning of Hinduism. If you think Protestantism is fragmented, you ain't seen nothin'.

 

[BBAS 64]

I asked several questions. Are you talking about this one?

You said:


My question:


That question is precisely to the point of historical SS.



In both cases, the people of God came before the Scripture. First God chose the Jews and gave them a Law. Then, they wrote Scripture through many centuries. First Jesus Christ established the Church. Then He commanded the Church to Teach His Word. Then the Church wrote the New Testament.



You're ignoring the Words of Christ. It is these words which were being passed down by the Church in the person of the Apostles. Do you believe that Jesus' words are the Word of God? Yes or no.



You're reading into that verse, your presuppositions. Neither verse says anything about Scripture alone. In fact, the context is the mutual dependence of Sacred Tradition and Scripture. A dependence which is emphasized in 2 Thess 2:15.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.



Sooo...you don't say that? Must you read that in Scripture in order to know that Truth?

May we all remain, in Him,

De Maria

Good Day, De Maria

The Church and the scripture both spring fourth from God so ontologically there are the same. From the human point of view cast in time we experience them different and our perceptions of them is flawed subjectively. The Church received from the hand of God the Scriptures indeed, he always knew what they were. The word of God is the only thing that we have that is God breathed out.... there for it has an authority equal to God himself.

Seeing I am not a member of the roman church her name it claim it "sacred tradition" and the silly authority attributed to them is not very useful in these types of discussions. I know you are told to believe differently about such things ( you do ) and that is ok.

Yes Jesus is god so yes...

We need a whole other thread on this misrepresentation of this text, and that would included many questions for you to answer in order for you to maintain your personal interpretation of this passage, if you would like to do that you can open a thread.

In that thread, please answer he following historical questions that arise...

Who (person) did Paul pass them on to.
What exactly were they
When year did that happen
Where did it happen

What makes your understanding of the text better than a 2,3,4 th century Bishop?

Primary source documentation please so the historicity can be validated to some objective standard.

Thanks,

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

I must say that was one of several passages that challenged me back when I was adrift in the Southern Baptist world. I never found a satisfactory explanation that didn't implicitly or even explicitly affirm the Magisterium in some way or another.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So now I'm Catholic.

The fact that you are member of the roman church does not solve your problem...

care to give it a try....

Who (person) did Paul pass them on to.
What exactly were they
When year did that happen
Where did it happen

What makes your understanding of the text better than a 2,3,4 th century Bishop?

Primary source documentation please so the historicity can be validated to some objective standard.

Open the thread...

In Him,

 

[Major1]

Good Day,

....ask away


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

In Him,

Bill

Yes Bill. you are absolutely correct! Excellant post!

 

[Major1]

I must say that was one of several passages that challenged me back when I was adrift in the Southern Baptist world. I never found a satisfactory explanation that didn't implicitly or even explicitly affirm the Magisterium in some way or another.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So now I'm Catholic.

I hear you and have read that from you before. I will give you the same answer as I have before.......

1 John 2:19..............
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

That speak to Some who were in the "church", but were never saved. They were religious but lost, so they never really left because they were never really there.

 

[Major1]

Interesting. I've discovered yet another definition of sola scriptura. Most curious.

Some people who believe in sola scriptura define it such that any religious practice/belief is permitted so long as it isn't forbidden by scripture. Are they wrong?

Other people who believe in sola scriptura define it such that only religious practices/beliefs affirmed by scripture are permissible. Are they wrong?

See, you argue against Sola Scriptura without knowing what it actually means. What YOU do know is that it is not accepted by the RCC and that is how you base your opinions and understanding.

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. You as a Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative.

We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible.

 

[Major1]

The fact that you are member of the roman church does not solve your problem...

care to give it a try....

Who (person) did Paul pass them on to.
What exactly were they
When year did that happen
Where did it happen

What makes your understanding of the text better than a 2,3,4 th century Bishop?

Primary source documentation please so the historicity can be validated to some objective standard.

Open the thread...

In Him,

In fact, it was made worse.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How many times did YHWH grant understanding to someone IN SCRIPTURE ?

 

[thecolorsblend]

See, you argue against Sola Scriptura without knowing what it actually means. What YOU do know is that it is not accepted by the RCC and that is how you base your opinions and understanding.

My main point is and has been that nobody knows what it means. Or everyone disagrees on what it means, which I suppose comes to the same.

 

[Major1]

My main point is and has been that nobody knows what it means. Or everyone disagrees on what it means, which I suppose comes to the same.

I can not understand why you do not know what it means. It has been explained several times now.

I say again to you that the reason why you and any other Catholics do not accept sola scriptura is because you are a Catholic and Catholics do not accept the Scriptures as God's Word.

It is just that simple my friend.

The Bible says that Bishops are to be married, but the Catholic church says NO.
The Bible says that we are to call no man "Father" but the RCC says NO.
The Bible says that ALL have sinned but the Catholic church says NO.
The Bible says that we all die, but the RCC says Mary didn't.
The Bible says there are no second chances after death, but the RCC says there is "Purgatory".

The list goes on and on and on. The basic premise is that if a teaching, like purgatory, isn’t stated in the Bible, then it must have been invented by man, and not the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura requires that all Christian teachings be found in the Bible for them to be true.

Paul said in 2 Timothy that the Scriptures can be understood by children. That being the case, why do you not understand them?

2 Tim.3:15...
"from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

 

[thecolorsblend]

I can not understand why you do not know what it means. It has been explained several times now.

Different definitions have been offered by different people. Many of this definitions contradict one another.

I say again to you that the reason why you and any other Catholics do not accept sola scriptura is because you are a Catholic

True.

and Catholics do not accept the Scriptures as God's Word.

Not true.

It is just that simple my friend.

This is the only time I will warn you. Do not presume to tell me what I do and don't believe again.

The Bible says that Bishops are to be married, but the Catholic church says NO.

1 Timothy 3 (where I assume this assertion of yours comes from) says bishops are to be the husband of only one wife. Since most Christians were converts at the time St. Paul wrote to Timothy, the raw material the Church had to work with would've mostly been married men.

Separately, the Church allows married clergy in the Eastern Rites. As a matter of discipline (eg, not dogma), married clergy are typically not allowed in the Roman Rite. But even there exceptions do exist.

The Bible says that we are to call no man "Father" but the RCC says NO.

Oy.

The Bible says that ALL have sinned but the Catholic church says NO.

Here we go again. Have the mentally infirm sinned? Have infants sinned? Did Our Lord sin? After all, the Bible says "all" have sinned, right?

The Bible says that we all die, but the RCC says Mary didn't.

According to the scriptures, how did Elijah die?

The Bible says there are no second chances after death, but the RCC says there is "Purgatory".

Pssst. Purgatory isn't a second chance.

The list goes on and on and on.

Indeed it does.

The basic premise is that if a teaching, like purgatory, isn’t stated in the Bible,

The Catholic Church interprets 1 Corinthians 3:5 as a description of the form, effect and purpose of Purgatory. Now, you might disagree that the passage should be interpreted in that way. But that passage means something. And, more to the point, Purgatory is how the Church interprets it.

Sola Scriptura requires that all Christian teachings be found in the Bible for them to be true.

According to you. But a casual glance around CF shows members who believe that it means that a given religious belief be not forbidden or disproven by scripture. Others believe that scripture can and should cooperate with some form of tradition (even Sacred Tradition).

As with so much else in Protestantism, nobody agrees on what sola scriptura means. In fact, all anybody seems to know for sure is that Protestant apparently love Latin terminology nearly as much as Catholics.

Ironically, scripture doesn't explicitly teach sola scriptura... which, perhaps, results in strange man-made traditions like sola scriptura.

Paul said in 2 Timothy that the Scriptures can be understood by children.

Try reading Song Of Solomon or Revelation to a four year old some time. Let me know how it goes.