Sola Scriptura

[Reformed Baptist]

Do you agree with this:

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.” James White

If not, how do you as a non-catholic/non-orthodox Christian define sola scriptura?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Reformed Baptist, this is a very interesting question . . of couse, since I am now becoming Catholic, I can't answer your question, but I would like to comment that I have seen various definitions of Sola Scriptura proposed and expounded upon, even by James White (he has not held to one definition it seems) . . so I will follow this thread with interest as one of the difficulties in discussing this foundational doctrine of Protestantism is how is it defined . . so I would be interested in what definitions others here, as non-catholic/non-orthodox have regarding this doctrine.

Should be an interesting thread ..

Peace in Him!

 

[Lotar]

Yes, that is what I believe. It's also what it originallly meant

 

[futureyouthpastor85]

If the Bible is to believed as the divinely inspired Word of God, then it must have sole authority. To disagree with this is like saying, "Well God, I know you said this, but theres this really cool tradition going around that doesnt exactly fit with what youre saying. so ill stick with tradition"

If this is not true, then what is the point of a God inspired book? He didnt give ten suggestions, He gave ten commandments - likewise the very words from God's lips should be treated as the utmost authoritative word of God.

 

[Svt4Him]

I agree with it, and would like to see a cite of James White's different translations.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I would have to say that I agree with that 100%

 

[sola fide]

I agree.

 

[kermit]

The wording of that statement I agree with (I have never heard Sola Scriptura defined as such). However, there is one major problem with Sola Scriptura, how does Man know what is and what isn't scripture? The only guides we have are history and tradition. So we are left with infallable scripture dependent upon fallible tradition.

I have never heard a proponent of Sola Scriptura address that inherent problem in a meaningful way.

 

[Terri]

I agree with that definition. God's Word gives me such joy I can hardly contain myself just thinking about it!

Those of us that are born again have the Holy Spirit living inside of us and the Holy Spirit testifies as to what is true and what is false; what is scripture and what is not.

So while the only guides some may have are history and tradition. I assure you that is not the case for everyone!

 

[seebs]

I agree that that is the definition generally used. I don't accept sola scriptura, but I do agree that the definition given is probably correct. It's certainly very close to what I generally understand people to mean by it.

 

[Greeter]

I agree with that definition. God's Word gives me such joy I can hardly contain myself just thinking about it!

Those of us that are born again have the Holy Spirit living inside of us and the Holy Spirit testifies as to what is true and what is false; what is scripture and what is not.

So while the only guides some may have are history and tradition. I assure you that is not the case for everyone!

Good answer. BTW, I like your new signature.

 

[kermit]

I agree with that definition. God's Word gives me such joy I can hardly contain myself just thinking about it!

Those of us that are born again have the Holy Spirit living inside of us and the Holy Spirit testifies as to what is true and what is false; what is scripture and what is not.

So while the only guides some may have are history and tradition. I assure you that is not the case for everyone!

Hmm...odd. Catholic and Orthodox who are reborn into God would also have the same ability to determine what is and isn't scripture, but they accept books that you don't. Why? Because you accept the books that you are taught by falliable men.

 

[MattMMMan17]

I wholeheartedly agree with Kermit up until the last sentence. There are other reasons to hold that belief as well. For now, I say Terri deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

[kermit]

I wholeheartedly agree with Kermit up until the last sentence. There are other reasons to hold that belief as well. For now, I say Terri deserves the benefit of the doubt.

You're right. I shouldn't have said that last sentence so I editted it out. Thanks.

 

[BBAS 64]

Do you agree with this:

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.” James White

If not, how do you as a non-catholic/non-orthodox Christian define sola scriptura?

Good Day, RB

I would agree with the spirit of the quote you posted by James White. There is great work by William Webster with reguards to this issue. It is quiet long ( 3-Vols.) and filled with a great deal of information.

http://www.ligonier.org/review/revheader.php?resourceid=657


For His Glory Alone!

BBAS

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Can anyone post something contrary to the quote by White about sola scrptura written from an orthodox protestant or non-catholic point of view?

 

[MattMMMan17]

Can anyone post something contrary about sola scrptura written from an orthodox Christian? (orthodox meaning non-catholic/non-eastern orthodox)

Whether intended or not, I find that post offensive. I don't THINK you intended it for that purpose, but would you mind rephrasing it to say "Can anyone post something contrary about sola scriptura written from a non-catholic/non-eastern orthodox Christian?"

 

[seebs]

So, you mean "orthodox, but neither Eastern Orthodox nor Catholic"?

 

[MattMMMan17]

So, you mean "orthodox, but neither Eastern Orthodox nor Catholic"?

That's what I interpreted it to mean. And that in itself rules out the only truly "Orthodox" Christians.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

I mean orthodox as a word and not the denomination.