What is the basis for Sola Scriptura?

CalvinOwen · Dec 6, 2004

Rising_Suns said:
I really do not want to enter into a debate, but in all honesty, yes, I do. It's what the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth"; its what composed the Bible in the first place. I could speak further on this, but I really should remove myself from this thread so as to avoid a debate.

Thank you for taking the time to reply in detail.

-Davide

You would base that on just one verse and that in which you have to infer a great deal?

1TI 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Boy, that seems like some very sketchy ground, no pun intended.

tigersnare · Dec 6, 2004

Rising_Suns said:
I really do not want to enter into a debate, but in all honesty, yes, I do. It's what the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth"; its what composed the Bible in the first place. I could speak further on this, but I really should remove myself from this thread so as to avoid a debate.

Thank you for taking the time to reply in detail.

-Davide

I'll give you Calvin's exact response to this, as in his time, it was the Church's only leg to stand on as well. I'll be back with it Wednesday...

Rising_Suns · Dec 6, 2004

CalvinOwen said:
You would base that on just one verse and that in which you have to infer a great deal?

1TI 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Boy, that seems like some very sketchy ground, no pun intended.

Peace be with you,

There is more to be said, but as previously stated, I do not intend to enter into a debate here. I think I got everything that I could get out of this thread, and I thank you and everyone else for their participation.

Take care, and may God richly bless all of you.

-Davide

tigersnare · Dec 6, 2004

Rising_Suns said:
Peace be with you,

There is more to be said, but as previously stated, I do not intend to enter into a debate here. I think I got everything that I could get out of this thread, and I thank you and everyone else for their participation.

Take care, and may God richly bless all of you.

-Davide

I realize you came for this

So my question is; on what authority/basis did the reformers use to conclude that the Bible is the sole and exclusive authority of God?

, and probably feel like you haven't heard it.

If you are willing to come back to this thread, wednesday I will have Calvin's exact writing on the matter, just took me a little while to find it in my books. The reason for waiting until wednesday is because I have 2 finals on that day and need to study.

Rising_Suns · Dec 6, 2004

If you are willing to come back to this thread, wednesday I will have Calvin's exact writing on the matter, just took me a little while to find it in my books. The reason for waiting until wednesday is because I have 2 finals on that day and need to study

Peace be with you Tigersnare,

Definately. And, goodluck on your exams! What is your major?

-Davide

tigersnare · Dec 6, 2004

Rising_Suns said:
Peace be with you Tigersnare,

Definately. And, goodluck on your exams! What is your major?

-Davide

Providential Blessing Rising Suns,

Thank you, and Mechanical Engineering.

Rising_Suns · Dec 6, 2004

tigersnare said:
Providential Blessing Rising Suns,

Thank you, and Mechanical Engineering.

Mine too. Just got my BSME.

You know, it's funny how many engineers go on to become priests. the statistic is surprisingly high.

tigersnare · Dec 6, 2004

Rising_Suns said:
Mine too. Just got my BSME.

You know, it's funny how many engineers go on to become priests. the statistic is surprisingly high.

Congrats, I'll be about your age when I get mine too...

It's funny how many engineers go on to be Presbyterian Ministers.

BBAS 64 · Dec 7, 2004

Good Day, RS

Hope you are well, I would like to take another approach to the biblical teaching of Scripture to be sufficent and the only rule of faith and knowledge.

Joh 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

Joh 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

Joh 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Joh 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Joh 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Joh 20:10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

This event took place after the reseruction of the Lord, he had in times past taught orally the fact that he would rise from the dead. The author points to Scripture as the means to which they were to learn these things.

Peace to u,

Bill

CalvinOwen · Dec 7, 2004

CalvinOwen said:
You would base that on just one verse and that in which you have to infer a great deal?

1TI 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Boy, that seems like some very sketchy ground, no pun intended.

All Paul is saying in 1TI 3:15 is howTimothy should act in Church as a preacher. And therefore he continues his letter saying to Timothy:

1TI 4:13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

1TI 4:14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

1TI 4:15 Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all.

Paul knew that it is the great responsibility of the Church to preach the Gospel and the Word of God of which it is indeed a pillar and in order to do that Timothy had to "be absorbed in the public reading, exhortation and teaching of the Scriptures" which contains all the Word of God.

As Paul had said earlier:

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" Rom 10:14

And as Jesus said earlier the truth that the Church is a pillar of is the Word of God:

JOH 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

How do you know what is the Word of God? You act like the Bereans and examine the Scriptures which alone contains all the truth:

ACT 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Rising_Suns · Dec 15, 2004

Thank you all for these passages, but I still fail to see anywhere that suggests Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority of God.

I'm sure you already know that all these references to "Scriptures" are speaking about Old Testament Scripture, since the New Testament had not been written yet. So I've been assuming you all apply all these verses to the New Testament, which is fine. I do that too. But I suppose I could ask you on what authority can do this; on what authoirty can you apply any of these verses to books that weren't even written yet? I'm not sure I want to go there, as I do not want to open up a whole new can of worms, but perhaps it may prove fruitfull.

CalvinOwen · Dec 15, 2004

Rising_Suns said:
Thank you all for these passages, but I still fail to see anywhere that suggests Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority of God.

I'm sure you already know that all these references to "Scriptures" are speaking about Old Testament Scripture, since the New Testament had not been written yet. So I've been assuming you all apply all these verses to the New Testament, which is fine. I do that too. But I suppose I could ask you on what authority can do this; on what authoirty can you apply any of these verses to books that weren't even written yet? I'm not sure I want to go there, as I do not want to open up a whole new can of worms, but perhaps it may prove fruitfull.

It's funny that this is how you are ending because this how we started. The following is my first post to you on December 5, 2004 in this thread showing how the Apostles define Scripture as the Old Testament and their letters which make up the New Testament:

We believe that the Word of God whether it is contained in traditions or orally spoken has all been written down and are contained in the Scriptures. That is why the Apostle Paul says all godly tradition can be found by word of mouth or in his letters. All godly tradition is in either place, not some in one "and" some in another, but it is all in Paul's oral lessons "or" in his letters. That is why Paul uses the word "or" in this exhortation:

2TH 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

In other words if you heard Paul you got the traditions "or" if you read Paul you got the traditions either wayr you got them all.

And of course we know Paul's letters were Scripture as Peter confirmed:

2PE 3:15-16... just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And of course the Apostle Paul boldly proclaimed all that he spoke or wrote was the Word of God:

1TH 2:13 ¶ For this reason we also constantly thank God, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Therefore when we read the famous verse used by Christians when referring to Sola Scriptura where Paul refers to the sacred writings (and not oral tradition) that the these writings or Scriptures that Paul is referring to also includes his very own letters (and all the Apostle's letters) as Peter strongly exhorts us to include and as Paul boldly proclaims is also the Word of God:

Rising_Suns · Dec 15, 2004

We believe that the Word of God whether it is contained in traditions or orally spoken has all been written down and are contained in the Scriptures. That is why the Apostle Paul says all godly tradition can be found by word of mouth or in his letters. All godly tradition is in either place, not some in one "and" some in another, but it is all in Paul's oral lessons "or" in his letters. That is why Paul uses the word "or" in this exhortation:

2TH 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

In other words if you heard Paul you got the traditions "or" if you read Paul you got the traditions either wayr you got them all.

Yes, I already understand this interpretation. Thank you.

2PE 3:15-16... just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And of course the Apostle Paul boldly proclaimed all that he spoke or wrote was the Word of God:

1TH 2:13 ¶ For this reason we also constantly thank God, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Ok, granted Paul spoke authoritatively about his writings. I completely agree. Let me ask you this; what about the rest of the NT books? They don't refer to themselves so how would a calvinist know they are authoritative?

CalvinOwen · Dec 15, 2004

Rising_Suns said:
Ok, granted Paul spoke authoritatively about his writings. I completely agree. Let me ask you this; what about the rest of the NT books? They don't refer to themselves so how would a calvinist know they are authoritative?

No, Peter spoke authoritatively about Paul's writings as Scripture and Paul called his own letters Scriptures. Jesus Christ said all the Apostles were speaking His Words and not their own. Sure they refer to themselves, with Christ as the lead referer!

Terri · Dec 23, 2004

Is very simple to me:

I trust God's Word over man's word.

God doesn't change His mind the way people do.

I will always compare what a man says or writes to what God's Words says and God's Word will always be the winner.

Jasta · Dec 28, 2004

nevermind

orthedoxy · Dec 28, 2004

I would think the oral tradition would be the explanation of scripture. The Scripture alone could mean different to every church. I don't think Calvinists just picked up the bible and became Calvinist, they heard someone interpret the bible and they believed the oral teachings.
I don't see why can't protestants say scripture + church.
As HiredGoon said sola scriptura came from tradition of man but I would disagree with the fathers he quoted I dont believe The Church believed in sola scriptura not until after the reformation.
Here is a quote from the same fathers Hiredgoon quoted:
Cyprian of Carthage
"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
Augustine
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

JM · Dec 28, 2004

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1).

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3,4:1).

According to Irenaeus, Tradition is substantive in content, normative in authority and continues to live in the Apostolic churches. Likewise Tertullian writes:

"Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition" (Prescription against the Heretics,28).

JM · Dec 28, 2004

orthedoxy said:
I don't think Calvinists just picked up the bible and became Calvinist, they heard someone interpret the bible and they believed the oral teachings.

Well, you now know at least one person who did read the Bible and became a 'calvinist.' I never knew I was a 'calvinist' until someone called me by that name when I was speaking about salvation with a fellow believer. At first I was unset, being called 'a follower of man!' But I honestly did read Romans and seen the same thing John Calvin did...and still do.

God bless,

SP

Terri · Dec 28, 2004

Street Preacher said:
Well, you now know at least one person who did read the Bible and became a 'calvinist.' I never knew I was a 'calvinist' until someone called me by that name when I was speaking about salvation with a fellow believer. At first I was unset, being called 'a follower of man!' But I honestly did read Romans and seen the same thing John Calvin did...and still do.

God bless,

SP

Same here Street Preacher!!

I've learned most everything I know straight from God's Word!!

Never knew what a Calvinist was until I learned on this forum that what I believed fit in with what they believed.

I've never even read anything by Calvin.

Some people just hate to accept that we can be lead into all truth totally by the Holy Spirit without having to follow some man!

What is the basis for Sola Scriptura?

CalvinOwen

Guest

Angry Young Calvinist

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

Angry Young Calvinist

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

Angry Young Calvinist

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

Angry Young Calvinist

Contributor

CalvinOwen

Guest

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

CalvinOwen

Guest

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

CalvinOwen

Guest

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Lusavorchagan

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency