Sola scriptura

[Constantine the Sinner]

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

 

[Geralt]

SS is not how you define it. try to google it first and look for definitions.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

SS is not how you define it. try to google it first and look for definitions.

Sola Scriptura
(Lat., ‘by scripture alone’).
The belief that the truths of Christian faith and practice can and must be established from scripture alone, without additions from, e.g., tradition or development.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100516917

You might be thinking of Prima scriptura, which is the idea that Scripture is the core source of doctrine, but is supplemented by other sources.

 

[Geralt]

your missing word that defines it is 'authority'. as God's written revelation of himself, its authority is founded on God himself.

and let me say in advance, it is NOT against tradition, nor church system, nor does it NOT recognize the authority of such entities.

however in matters of conscience and moral authority, scripture alone vindicates ALL other relative authority.​

Sola Scriptura
(Lat., ‘by scripture alone’).
The belief that the truths of Christian faith and practice can and must be established from scripture alone, without additions from, e.g., tradition or development.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100516917

You might be thinking of Prima scriptura, which is the idea that Scripture is the core source of doctrine, but is supplemented by other sources.

 

[Soyeong]

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

Sola Scriptura does not deny the use of traditions, but rather it says that when a tradition conflicts with God's word, that God's word has the highest authority. Basically, we should follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who checked OT Scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true before they accepted it. If Paul had said anything contrary to what OT Scripture says, then they would have rightfully rejected it. God's word is truth (Psalms 119:142), so it is the standard that we use to measure everything else against to see if it is true. Even saying that you just go by what the Bible says is itself a tradition, so it would be essentially impossible to follow Christianity without following traditions. Many of these man-made traditions are good or benign, but not all of them are in agreement with what OT Scripture teaches, so we should reject those traditions in favor of Scripture instead of rejecting Scripture in favor of those traditions. Jesus followed a number of man-made traditions, such as keeping Hanukkah (John 10:22), but he came in conflict with those traditions that went against Scripture, and criticized the Pharisees for setting aside the commands of God in order to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-8).

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

your missing word that defines it is 'authority'. as God's written revelation of himself, its authority is founded on God himself.

and let me say in advance, it is NOT against tradition, nor church system, nor does it NOT recognize the authority of such entities.

however in matters of conscience and moral authority, scripture alone vindicates ALL other relative authority.​

Where does Scripture authorize its canon? Where does Scripture authorize the doctrine of sola scriptura?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Sola Scriptura does not deny the use of traditions, but rather it says that when a tradition conflicts with God's word, that God's word has the highest authority. Basically, we should follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who checked OT Scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true before they accepted it. If Paul had said anything against what OT Scripture says, then they would have rightly rejected it. God's word is truth (Psalms 119:142), so it is the standard that we use to measure everything else against to see if it is true. Even saying that you just go by what the Bible says is itself a tradition, so it would be essentially impossible to follow Christianity without following traditions. Many of these man-made traditions are good, but not all of them are in agreement with what OT Scripture teaches, so we should reject those traditions in favor of Scripture instead of rejecting Scripture in favor of those traditions. Jesus followed some man-made traditions, such as keeping Hanukkah (John 10:22), but he came in conflict with those traditions that went against Scripture, and criticized the Pharisees for setting aside the commands of God in order to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-8).

First of all, Holy Tradition isn't man-made. Many traditions employed by the Church are, but Holy Tradition means precisely and only what Christ personally passed on to his Apostles. Christ did not pass on any Scripture, but Scripture witnesses Christ's teachings, it is a witness to Holy Tradition, and that is why it is Sacred. However, there is no part of Scripture that claims Scripture is a comprehensive account of what Christ taught (how could it be? look how long he taught). Furthermore, there is no verse in Scripture giving a New Testament canon, that canon was put together by deliberation of the Church. So if you subscribe to a New Testament canon, right off the bat you are accepting a non-Scriptural teaching. And, once again, nothing in the New Testament says it is a comprehensive record of all dogma.

 

[Geralt]

you can argue about this and that, but bottomline is always authority.

- if you do not recognize the supreme authority of scripture, please just say so.

- if you do recognize the authority of scripture but make it par or subordinate with other 'sources' of authority (liek tradition, or another), please just say so.

then you can start making all your support arguments when your position is clear.​

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I consider Christ the Supreme Authority, Scripture is an authority only because it is a witness to Christ's teachings. Scripture's authority is strictly as a witness to Christ's authority. Christ's teachings are referred to as 'Holy Tradition', Scripture is a witness to that. No source of doctrinal authority, Scripture included, is a teacher unto itself (Matthew 23:10), but only an authority as a witness to Christ's teachings.

What is your authority for the Scriptural canon? What is your authority for the doctrine of sola scriptura? Not Christ, I think.

 

[Geralt]

unfortunately christ's teachings are only in the NT, so i suppose your "scripture" does not include the OT or parts of it ? please confirm.

I consider Christ the Supreme Authority, Scripture is an authority only because it is a witness to Christ's teachings. Scripture's authority is strictly as a witness to Christ's authority. Christ's teachings are referred to as 'Holy Tradition', Scripture is a witness to that. No source of doctrinal authority, Scripture included, is a teacher unto itself (Matthew 23:10), but only an authority as a witness to Christ's teachings.

What is your authority for the Scriptural canon? What is your authority for the doctrine of sola scriptura? Not Christ, I think.

 

[amariselle]

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

The are no "difficulties" in considering Scripture to be authoritative; it is the inspired word of God.

And God does not contradict Himself. If any tradition or teaching is contrary to the word of God, then that tradition or teaching is not of God. He has given us His word that we may have guidance and discernment and so we will not be led astray.

And God has worked through mankind in the writing and formation of His word, throughout the entire process. Without the word of God to turn to, we have no way of knowing for certain what is of God and what is not. Just because a teaching or tradition has been around for a long time, does not mean it is of God. (Satan has been deceiving mankind since the garden of Eden) We are to search the Scriptures and seek the Lord in all things so that we will not be deceived or led astray.

Relying on traditions apart from the word of God, especially when those traditions conflict with the word of God, is to open ourselves up to deception and being led astray. God has not left us directionless, we have been given His word, that we may learn from Him and know truth from lies.

Anything that is not in agreement with the word of God, is not of God. Just because a particular teaching or practice is church "tradition", does not make it correct.

The central question is, do you trust and believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? If the answer is "yes", (as it should be) then you will not put any other teachings or traditions above the inspired word of God, but you will instead search the Scriptures in all things.

Blessings,

~Amariselle

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

This is more of an "Angel of the Church" situation.

 

[Albion]

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

Considering that this subject has been debated innumerable times here on CF, I'll summarize. The canon isn't tradition in the sense that so-called Holy Tradition substitutes (in some churches) for the Bible. It's merely "tradition" in the secular sense of the word, as having a historical dimension. Your point #2 doesn't mean anything because it simply says that Scripture has to have some definition and you already lauded the church in point #1 for having done that.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

unfortunately christ's teachings are only in the NT, so i suppose your "scripture" does not include the OT or parts of it ? please confirm.

The Word of God taught throughout the OT, as did the Holy Spirit (which spoke through the prophets). However, the NT does tell us how we are to understand the OT.

The are no "difficulties" in considering Scripture to be authoritative; it is the inspired word of God.

And God does not contradict Himself. If any tradition or teaching is contrary to the word of God, then that tradition or teaching is not of God. He has given us His word that we may have guidance and discernment and so we will not be led astray.

And God has worked through mankind in the writing and formation of His word, throughout the entire process. Without the word of God to turn to, we have no way of knowing for certain what is of God and what is not. Just because a teaching or tradition has been around for a long time, does not mean it is of God. (Satan has been deceiving mankind since the garden of Eden) We are to search the Scriptures and seek the Lord in all things so that we will not be deceived or led astray.

Relying on traditions apart from the word of God, especially when those traditions conflict with the word of God, is to open ourselves up to deception and being led astray. God has not left us directionless, we have been given His word, that we may learn from Him and know truth from lies.

Anything that is not in agreement with the word of God, is not of God. Just because a particular teaching or practice is church "tradition", does not make it correct.

The central question is, do you trust and believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? If the answer is "yes", (as it should be) then you will not put any other teachings or traditions above the inspired word of God, but you will instead search the Scriptures in all things.

Blessings,

~Amariselle

This is largely a strawman. Sola scriptura is not simply about Scripture being 100% correct in the teachings it contains, and the Logoi of God, which of course is an Orthodox position and has always been. Sola scriptura is about Scripture being the sole source of dogma. It's not a matter of there being other sources that don't conflict, but of Scripture being the only one. Scripture ALONE. Not, Prima Scriptura, SOLA Scriptura. Other sources are not only not in conflict with Scripture, Scripture is meant to function in their context; as I've pointed out multiple times, and hasn't been addressed, the very Scriptural canon is not derived from Scripture, it is from a source exterior to Scripture, and before we can even determine what writings constitute Scripture, we have to accept that source first. Furthermore, that very source is and must be a non-dogmatic tradition, since Christ did not personally pass any Scriptural canon, it was developed by men; the validity of the Scriptural canon is based on the works included being blameless witnesses to Christ's teachings and 100% reliable (but not necessary exhaustive).

Holy Tradition (distinct from lower-case tradition) is neither more nor less than what Christ himself taught in person. Scripture is not a source distinct from Holy Tradition, Scripture is a source that witnesses and elucidates Holy Tradition. Saying, "Holy Tradition must bend where it conflicts with Scripture," is incoherent, since that is the same as saying, "Christ must bend where he conflicts with Scripture." Christ doesn't conflict with Scripture, the point of Scripture is to witness Christ's teachings and it does this without error, that is why Scripture is so highly regarded.

 

[Thursday]

unfortunately christ's teachings are only in the NT, so i suppose your "scripture" does not include the OT or parts of it ? please confirm.

What is the NT? Who told you which books belong in the NT?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Considering that this subject has been debated innumerable times here on CF, I'll summarize. The canon isn't tradition in the sense that so-called Holy Tradition substitutes (in some churches) for the Bible. It's merely "tradition" in the secular sense of the word, as having a historical dimension. Your point #2 doesn't mean anything because it simply says that Scripture has to have some definition and you already lauded the church in point #1 for having done that.

1. Which makes the conception of Scripture as exhaustive, questionable. There were many different canons of the New Testament in ancient times; several that weren't heretical, but in fact just included fewer books; are these canons with fewer books, just as doctrinally comprehensive as the standard canon today?

2. No, it says Scripture has to support Sola Scriptura, which Scripture doesn't.

 

[Geralt]

so in truth it is NOT just Christ as you previously asserted, but the whole of scripture.

The Word of God taught throughout the OT, as did the Holy Spirit (which spoke through the prophets). However, the NT does tell us how we are to understand the OT.

 

[Geralt]

you probably would like to insert your already worn out argument that the catholic church originated such and such. i think what you should ask is who told them ? not me.

What is the NT? Who told you which books belong in the NT?

 

[Thursday]

you probably would like to insert your already worn out argument that the catholic church originated such and such. i think what you should ask is who told them ? not me.

I asked you. Who told you which books belong in the NT?

Of course you know that the Catholic Church selected these books. Why do you trust the authority of the Church?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

so in truth it is NOT just Christ as you previously asserted, but the whole of scripture.

The Word is Christ, the persons are one and the same. As for the Holy Spirit, although he is not the Word, they (as well as the Father) have one and the same actions, properties and will, and those would include teachings; to distinguish between Christ's teachings and the teachings of the Holy Spirit would be the heresy of Tritheism.