What is the basis for Sola Scriptura?

[orthedoxy]

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

I believe people interpret the bible from the way they have heard from TV and radio.
Did you believe in the tulip on your own? Where you just given a bible and without listening to anyone you believe in the tulip?
I bet you didn't come up with the conclusion on which books belong in the bible on your own. You were handed a book that contained 66 books and you accepted that these are scripture. I don’t think anyone comes to this conclusion by bible only.
We all are basing our interpretation on some church. Everyone thinks they have the right interpretation; I haven’t met a person that says I have false faith or my interpretation of the bible is wrong.

 

[larryjf]

I have always found this to be a misunderstood topic.
I beleive Luther himself wrote that it is "Scripture alone, but scripture is never alone".

I think the idea may be best summed up as the bible being the sole authority. But that very authority proclaims that tradition is also to be used.

2 Thess 3:6 - Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (ESV)

It is really only "human" tradition that the scriptures speak out against...

Col 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (ESV)

To me Sola Scriptura means that if something goes against the bible, the bible "trumps" it. The bible is our "final" authority. And even the men that have been placed over us in the church only have thier authority within the coinfines of scripture.

 

[JM]

I believe people interpret the bible from the way they have heard from TV and radio.
Did you believe in the tulip on your own? Where you just given a bible and without listening to anyone you believe in the tulip?
I bet you didn't come up with the conclusion on which books belong in the bible on your own. You were handed a book that contained 66 books and you accepted that these are scripture. I don’t think anyone comes to this conclusion by bible only.
We all are basing our interpretation on some church. Everyone thinks they have the right interpretation; I haven’t met a person that says I have false faith or my interpretation of the bible is wrong.

Great questions, Orthedoxy...by the way...I collect Ikons and have Christ Blessing, Theotokos and Christ, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Nektarios and Our Lady of Walsingham. I collect them as art, not for worship purposes but I do understand a little about the theology of Ikons (but I disagree with it). I also collect prayer beads and ropes but again, I don't use them for worship.



As for my understanding of the TULIP...that’s a hard question to answer. I did believe in the basic elements of the TULIP but I never sat down and figured it out. I knew I was a sinner and if it was up to me to accept Christ I would never had done so. I was happy in my sin, I didn’t even know what I was doing was sin until I was saved by the power of Christ. After God called me and only after did I see the need to be saved...I ran to God. To borrow from Bottner, we know gravity exists and we knew it existed well before Newton but yet it was Newton who was able to define it with clarity. Are we to say that Newton discovered gravity? No.

I hope this helps, I did pick up the Bible and each page dripped with the depravity of man, the need of Christ to save, the powerlessness of the sinner to improve his situation on his own steam, a plan of salvation that God created ‘before the foundations of the world’, how the heart is evil and it’s not to be trusted, etc. I wasn’t into TV preachers and I’m still not. I could be wrong but the TV doesn’t have many Calvinist preachers now days or does it?

 

[JM]

PS: I noticed you're Coptic Orthodox, have you read "Traditional Egyptian Christianity" by Partrick? It's a great read for anyone interested in the Coptic church.

 

[BBAS 64]

I believe people interpret the bible from the way they have heard from TV and radio.
Did you believe in the tulip on your own? Where you just given a bible and without listening to anyone you believe in the tulip?
I bet you didn't come up with the conclusion on which books belong in the bible on your own. You were handed a book that contained 66 books and you accepted that these are scripture. I don’t think anyone comes to this conclusion by bible only.
We all are basing our interpretation on some church. Everyone thinks they have the right interpretation; I haven’t met a person that says I have false faith or my interpretation of the bible is wrong.

Good Day, Orthedoxy

Cavinist TV... . man I love modern inventions. You were handed a book that exceeded the the historical cannon of the Jews and accepted it. False Faith is the same as no Faith IMHO.


"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Terri]

Good Day, Orthedoxy

Cavinist TV... . man I love modern inventions. You were handed a book that exceeded the the historical cannon of the Jews and accepted it. False Faith is the same as no Faith IMHO.


"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)


Peace to u,

Bill

Calvinist TV ??? That must be on cable. I don't have cable though. I will just have to rely on God's Word I guess!

 

[theseed]

See my last post in Sola Scriptura.

 

[theseed]

Without anohter man's help, I started seeking God on my own. From my testimony,

when I was 13, I came to learn about all that Jesus Christ had done when he had his ministry here on earth by reading a book called the Simple English New Testament. I read how the sick became well. How the blind did see, how the deaf did hear, how the paralyzed did move and how others were freed from sorrows, demons, and even death itself, all because of Jesus. I read how Jesus was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our sins, but remained silent, how he became obedient to death; even death on the cross (Isaiah 53; Philippians 2). At the same time, the 700 Club was on, and I caught the end of it, as they led the audience in a prayer to receive Christ. It was then that I realized that I had to choose to believe or not to believe. That day I asked Jesus to come into my life and save me, knowing that I did not deserve it because I was a sinner. That day I accepted Jesus and his story as fact through faith. I came to realize that only Jesus Christ could love me so much and he would have died only for me. In the words of Rebecca St. James, “Such grace could only come from God”. God began his work in me, by saving me; and by freeing me from the bondage of sin and death, by giving me a new life. (Because he did not stay dead but came to life again, I know to that I shall live). You can receive Christ the same way I did, just by asking and believing. “For it is with the heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (Romans 10:1).

 

[AndOne]

Thought I would take a crack at the origonal question -

How about Galations 1:8 - "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a different gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (NASB)

This is a major reason why those of the Reformed persuasion hold to the Bible being the final authority on things related to salvation and Christianity. Any other authority should be challenged on the basis of scripture alone.

1 John 4:1 - "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see weather they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (NASB)

Any other authority that adds to or takes away from the Bible distorts the gospel.

It may not be an acceptable answer to the origonal poster - but the authority of traditions and the Popes must stand up to the scrutiny of the word. In cases where the authority or teachings of the Pope (or any church leader for that matter) contradict or add to scripture there is a problem and Holy scripture should not be overruled in the final disposition as to wheather a practice or teaching is right or wrong.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[orthedoxy]

I was unconditionally elected and put in a Christian house and was a Christiana from infancy(if i were to die i was saved). When I got older I walked away from God and at that time if I were to die I wouldn't have been saved. My heart knew I was separated from God. God reached out to me but didn't force me to believe, I repented from my sins then I was made alive again.

Street preacher
One of the reason I'm not protestant is because I understood the lie I was taught by Protestants when they said Orthodox worship saints.
There are 300,000 different denominations they all say if you read the bible the right way you become like us.
I'll give you one example how you can't become Calvinist by reading the bible only.
When you read john 3:16 you understand it God loves everyone not only the elect if you don't believe me you can ask a non believer and see what they think that verse mean.

I don't see how you compare the bible to gravity?
The Bible doesn't mention which books to accept, Jesus didn't write a book. You say the disciples can make mistakes. How can you determine the Canon if you are not relying on men to tell you which books belong in the Canon?
Since the bible does not mention which books belong in there we are relying on people To tell us which books belong in the canon. When we rely on people outside the bible to tell us what is the bible, how can we say bible only?
The Church before 395 ad didn't know which books were canon yet they preserved the true teachings that was passed on to them.
Another point we didn't even have publications until after the 1500ad.all this time the people were relying on a church leader to interpret the bible for them.
Bible only has to be a new teaching.
As Behe's boy quoted:
Galations 1:8 - "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a different gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (NASB)
Preach is an oral teachings and not just a writing but an interpretation of the writings.

 

[JM]

We who believe in the Bible as a final 'word' on faith (pun intended) are united in this truth and it is better to be divided on the small matters then united in error.

To quote (maybe misquote, I can't remember) a famous Christian, 'They quote the Fathers. Let them. For we have ONE Father who is in heaven.'

The Church is made up of those who's belief is proper, the Elect of God, not who's Church can claim this or that, for they claim the teachings of men and not the Word of God. Jesus Christ grants us access to God, not the Church for the Church is made up of the Saints called.

How did Jesus answer...with 'it is written.' What did Jesus say about tradition? Who's tradition is proper: Orthodox, Anglican or that of the Latins? All make the same claim... Traditions are useful but never should they over rule the Bible. I will admit that I'm at fault, I believe a systematic reasonable theology used in a consistant manner when dealing with the Bible, if this be the tradition of men...then it is a Holy and useful tradition.

If you'd like to discuss the Holy Canon, start another thread and we will have at it.

In Christ who strengthens me,

sp

 

[Terri]

Great post SP!

And this is a great quote!! I love it!!

To quote (maybe misquote, I can't remember) a famous Christian, 'They quote the Fathers. Let them. For we have ONE Father who is in heaven.'

 

[Asaph]

I was unconditionally elected and put in a Christian house and was a Christiana from infancy(if i were to die i was saved). When I got older I walked away from God and at that time if I were to die I wouldn't have been saved. My heart knew I was separated from God. God reached out to me but didn't force me to believe, I repented from my sins then I was made alive again.

Street preacher
One of the reason I'm not protestant is because I understood the lie I was taught by Protestants when they said Orthodox worship saints.
There are 300,000 different denominations they all say if you read the bible the right way you become like us.
I'll give you one example how you can't become Calvinist by reading the bible only.
When you read john 3:16 you understand it God loves everyone not only the elect if you don't believe me you can ask a non believer and see what they think that verse mean.

I don't see how you compare the bible to gravity?
The Bible doesn't mention which books to accept, Jesus didn't write a book. You say the disciples can make mistakes. How can you determine the Canon if you are not relying on men to tell you which books belong in the Canon?
Since the bible does not mention which books belong in there we are relying on people To tell us which books belong in the canon. When we rely on people outside the bible to tell us what is the bible, how can we say bible only?
The Church before 395 ad didn't know which books were canon yet they preserved the true teachings that was passed on to them.
Another point we didn't even have publications until after the 1500ad.all this time the people were relying on a church leader to interpret the bible for them.
Bible only has to be a new teaching.
As Behe's boy quoted:
Galations 1:8 - "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a different gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (NASB)
Preach is an oral teachings and not just a writing but an interpretation of the writings.

I'm sorry. I tried to read all of that, but it just got to feeling too much like one of those crazy dogs that chases it's tail. So I had to stop.

Asaph

 

[gtsecc]

Quote:

"Continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that 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. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:14-17)​

​

​

You know, when you say Scripture, you probably mean the 66 Books.
Other folks may have a different canon in mind when they say Scripture.
Paul certainly isn't talking a bible whose Gospel had not even been writen at the time of this letter. He is probably refering to the Law and the Prophets.

 

[AndOne]

One thing that you have to consider with the origonal 66 books of the canon of scripture - is that all books were written by accepted authorities within the faith.

In other words - regardless of what you think about how those 66 books were "chosen" to be canon you cannot say (if you claim Christ that is) that the authors were in error.

It is also generally accepted that the writings of Paul and the other apostles are inspired by the Spirit of God. The apostles because of their close relationship with Christ when He was here and Paul because of his extraordinary conversion experience on the road to Damascus.

I guess my point is this. The books of the New Testament were pretty much written by the founding Church fathers - people who walked with Christ and knew him as well as witnessed his death and resurrectin (excluding Paul - though he did spend three years with Christ - see Gal 1:15-19 and he was accepted without question by those who did) and should take presedence when a question of conflict or inconsistency arises.

Its really a very logical thought process when you think about. Paul said test the spirits and not to listen to "another" gospel. Everything that he and the others preached in the New Testament was and is the gospel. The Old testament points to the gospel. Those 66 books alone are more than enough to give a defence to any objections or correct any mistakes - soley because they are the origonal words from the Jewish Prophets and the very first church leaders themselves - the apostles.

One should give precedence to the canon of scripture based on the extraordinary qualifications of the apostles and prophets alone. Church leaders that have arisen since then cannot claim these same qualifications - and should exist unto the scriptures not in defiance to or in an effort to add to the scriptures.

What it boils down to is this - if you are looking to the authority of traditions and modern (post apostles) church leadership as "final" authority then you may very well be placing yourself in conflict with the teachings of the origonal apostles, prophets, and most importantly Christ Himself - whom we know without a shadow of a doubt were not in error - and if such modern tradition or leadership makes the claim that those origonal apostles and prophets were in error than they are indeed preaching another gospel and have failed the test. Such leaders and churches should be avoided at all costs.

If you choose someone or a church who adds to scripture, takes away from it or undeniably and purposely conflicts with it - beware!

 

[gtsecc]

Behe's Boy,

Are you arguing for a specific Canon or for Sola Scriptura?

I would suggest that you will not find any Church traditions which conflict with Scripture.

I would also suggest that the passage you refer to about adding or taking away from "Scripture" was not referring to a 66 Book canon, but probably the Septuagint or the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Asaph]

There are only three real groups of people I can think of who deny the sufficeincy of the bible. (the 66 books version)

1. Atheists
2. Cults and non-Christ centered religions
3. And those churches that want to raise their words and traditions above that of God's Word.

I guess that may not be an all encompassing list, but they all do have that common theme.

Asaph

 

[A. believer]

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...

Hi tigersnare,

I presume you didn't mean it this way, but keep in mind that it wasn't "the Church" that was trying to defend the absolutist concept of papalism that had developed by the sixteenth century, but rather, a certain faction within the church--the high papalists.

 

[gtsecc]

There are only three real groups of people I can think of who deny the sufficeincy of the bible. (the 66 books version)

1. Atheists
2. Cults and non-Christ centered religions
3. And those churches that want to raise their words and traditions above that of God's Word.

I guess that may not be an all encompassing list, but they all do have that common theme.

Asaph

Add Anglicans.
We do say the scripture includes everything sufficient for salvation.
But, we count more than 66 books.
And, we do not believe the fullness of the faith is conveyed by just the Bible.
John 20:30
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;Traditions, however cannot conflict with the Bible.

We may be wrong, but I don't think we can seriously be accused of either 1,2, or 3.

 

[AndOne]

Behe's Boy,

Are you arguing for a specific Canon or for Sola Scriptura?

I would suggest that you will not find any Church traditions which conflict with Scripture.

I would also suggest that the passage you refer to about adding or taking away from "Scripture" was not referring to a 66 Book canon, but probably the Septuagint or the Law and the Prophets.

I wasn't arguing for anything - simply explaining why myself and others accept the Bible as the sole and final authority on all things pertaining to the faith. And issuing a warning to those who don't do so.

I did not refer to any passage when I made my statement about taking to or adding from "scripture" (though I know the passage you are refering to). That statement was made as a logical conclusion to my own thoughts on the subject.

No traditions that don't conflict with scripture!? Don't even get me started on Anglicans (I was baptised as an infant and confirmed in the Episcopal Church btw). Your own church specifically has thumbed its very nose at the teaching of Paul the apostle by allowing the ordination of gay priests and a bishop. Of course the Anglicans don't accept scripture as final authority - they have proven that they have little regard for it by doing so (I am speaking specifically of the church's leadership - and I know not all agree with what is happening). Your church has blatantly taken away from scripture - so don't try to tell me that it doesn't conflict with scripture - that is a joke!