Whence sola scriptura?

[A. believer]

Is there a difference between "pillar of truth" and "the truth"?

If you look in a concordance for the words translated as "pillar" and "support" or "bulwark" of truth, you'll see that they refer to a kind of support or prop. In this context, it's the church (defined in Scripture as the covenant people of God) which supports the truth. In other words, the normal means through which people hear the gospel is through the church.

 

[II Paradox II]

If you look in a concordance for the words translated as "pillar" and "support" or "bulwark" of truth, you'll see that they refer to a kind of support or prop. In this context, it's the church (defined in Scripture as the covenant people of God) which supports the truth. In other words, the normal means through which people hear the gospel is through the church.

This leads as well to making sense of the place of that verse in 1st Timothy. The context is filled with moral commands about how the church is to to choose leaders and run itself in the public sphere. Therefore it's outward workings justify it's truth claims. In this way it acts as a support of the truth by illustrating the power of God in His body, the church...

ken

 

[orthedoxy]

simple answer - I don't get that idea solely from this verse. As I was saying to others, I don't treat the bible as a set of axioms from which I can deduce incontrovertible proofs for my pet doctrines (this is not to say there anen't' such axioms there, but they don't comprise the whole of scripture). It is primarily a narrative from which we infer doctrines over the course of the entire scripture. That being said, the passage in 2nd Timothy is one piece of evidence that is used to develop the idea, but it is not sufficient in itself to do so.

if you say the Bible is the only infallible source for truth you have to prove that from scripture not anything else.
What other places from the scripture teaches the bible is the only source for infallible truth?

I do think it's taught in the bible, just not the way you are thinking it's taught in the bible. There clearly is a place for tradition in the church, we just disagree on *what* it's role is as compared to scripture.


Let me ask you this, what is the immediate preceding context of 1st Timothy 3:15? The entire letter is focused around the purity of the church, making sure ATimothy understands how the church is to be run in discipline, teaching, order and so forth. In this context he states offhand, "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." The point of this aside is to illustrate the necessity of these things to the authentic witness of the church such that it can be, as Jesus says, the city on the hill. His point is that the things he lays out in the rest of the epistle are necessary for the correct function of the church, which is God's mouthpiece to a lost world. It's not teaching a form of church-onlyism as that wuold go against the very words of 4:13, "Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching." Words which emplore Timothy to keep up with the public reading of the word, teaching and exhorting from it (as was the tradition of the Jews before him).

ken

According to 1tim 3:15 is it saying the church is the pillar and foundation for truth?
I’m not saying the church is the only source for the truth because I believe the church and the bible are the source. I can build a better case for church only then you can for bible only.
Here are more promises to the church. Matt 16:18 I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it
Would you accept from these verses that the church is a source of infallible truth?
Jesus didn’t write a book, the church didn’t even know which books they should accept until 400ad, no one had their own copy of the bible until 1500ad. How could you have claimed sola scriptura before 1500 ad when not everyone had a copy of a bible? They were relying on the church for interpretation.

 

[II Paradox II]

if you say the Bible is the only infallible source for truth you have to prove that from scripture not anything else.
What other places from the scripture teaches the bible is the only source for infallible truth?

No, why would you think that? Saying that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith doesn't mean there aren't other truths to found nor other rules of faith which are fallible, yet still generally accepted.

That being said, I'm also not arguing that sola scriptura cannot be derived from scripture, because I believe it can be reasonably iferred from it. You're missing my point on inference as well. You keep on asking me for a specific place where the scripture teaches a doctrinal formulation that was developed later and I keep on telling you that that is not a proper way to look at the problem. Just as in the case of the trinity, we infer the doctrine of sola scriptura from many verses and the general flow of the scripture itself. What this means is that one is extremely unlikely to find *a* singular verse that expresses the later theological doctrine of sola scriptura, though when looking at the teaching of scripture as a whole, the doctrine can be reasonably inferred from it.

I’m not saying the church is the only source for the truth because I believe the church and the bible are the source. I can build a better case for church only then you can for bible only.

well, that's good, because I'm not building a case for the "bible-only".

Here are more promises to the church. Matt 16:18 I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it
Would you accept from these verses that the church is a source of infallible truth?

no, I wouldn't, would you?

Jesus didn’t write a book, the church didn’t even know which books they should accept until 400ad, no one had their own copy of the bible until 1500ad.

so were the fathers before 400 just confused when they referred to New Testament scripture?

How could you have claimed sola scriptura before 1500 ad when not everyone had a copy of a bible? They were relying on the church for interpretation.

A few points:

1) The issue of access to personal copies of scripture and interpretation of scripture are two different questions. To conflate them will only serve to confuse.

2) The doctrine of sola scriptura is not concerned with who has access to bibles, only that the scriptures are the sole, infallible, verifiable revelalation of God. As such, when you build doctrines, they should be consonant with God's scriptures. Things that God has not chosen to reveal should not be held over men's heads. If people do not have access to the scripture, but only to a creed, then so be it, as long as the creed reflects the scripture.

3) Your perception of the relation of scripture and the illiterate masses seems off the mark, so in closing I give you one of my favorite passages from Harry Gamble's book, "Books and Readers in the Early Chuch"

"It may seem paradoxical to say both that Christianity placed a high value on texts and that most Christians were unable to read, but in the ancient world this was no contradiction. In Greco-Roman society the illiterate had access to literacy in a variety of public settings. Recitations of poetry and prose works, dramatic performances in theatres and festivals, declamations in high rhetorical style, street corner philosophical diatribes, commemoritive inscriptions, the posting and reading of official decrees, the routine traffic of legal and commercial documents all brought the fruits of literacy befoer the general population, educating the public in it's uses and popularizing it's conventions...Besides the papyri show that many illiterates had recourse to professional scribes for the composition of letters and contracts, and many of the epitaphs surviving from Greek and Roman anitquity were commissioned on behalf og the illiterate. They were not, then, barred from the practical benefits of literacy nor from an acquaintance with the substance of texts.

If most Christians were illiterate,it did not prevent them from participating in literacy or from becoming familiar with Christian texts. Those who had only a cursory contact with Christianity through missionary preaching or propagande could hardly have failed to notice it's reliance on texts and to hear them quoted. Those who were drawn to Christianity were intensively schooled in it's literature, especially scripture. The extended catechetical proces by which converts came into the church concentrated, at least from the second century onward, upon doctrinal and moral instruction. It certainly did not include learning to read or write**, but it did include close familiarization with the Christian scriptures. Further, an essential element of Christian liturgical gatherings was the reading of scripture. In the early centuries scripture was not read in snippets but long segments. Near the middle of the second century Justin Martyr commented (Apol. 1.67) that in the weekly service of worship "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits." With such regular and lengthy readings, followed by their homiletical exposition, Christians who could not read nevertheless became conversant with the substance of scriptural literature and also with other texts that were occasionally read in the setting of worship. Thus, although the limited extent of individual literacy certainly had a bearing on the composition, trnascription, private use, and authoritative interpretation of Christian texts, it had little adverse effect on the ability of Christians generally to gain a close acquainance with Christian literature. The illiterate Christian found in the public reading of Christian texts at least as large and probably a more consistent opportunity than his pagan counterpart to participate in literacy and become familiar with texts.

Yet because of the importance of scripture to Christianity the church could not be wholly indifferent to literacy. If literacy was never a requirement for membership in the Christian community, it was undoubtedly a primary desideratum of Christian leaders and teachers from the earliest days. A much-cited text characterizes the apostles and Peter and John as "illiterate and uneducated" (agrammatoi kai idiotai Acts 4:13), but the meaning is probably only that they were illiterate in Greek and had no Greek schooling...When early in the second century we begin to encounter indivdual Christian bishops and presbyters - Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Papias of Hierapolis - it is precisely through their writings that we know them."
Pg. 8,9

ken

 

[orthedoxy]

No, why would you think that? Saying that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith doesn't mean there aren't other truths to found nor other rules of faith which are fallible, yet still generally accepted.

That being said, I'm also not arguing that sola scriptura cannot be derived from scripture, because I believe it can be reasonably iferred from it. You're missing my point on inference as well. You keep on asking me for a specific place where the scripture teaches a doctrinal formulation that was developed later and I keep on telling you that that is not a proper way to look at the problem. Just as in the case of the trinity, we infer the doctrine of sola scriptura from many verses and the general flow of the scripture itself. What this means is that one is extremely unlikely to find *a* singular verse that expresses the later theological doctrine of sola scriptura, though when looking at the teaching of scripture as a whole, the doctrine can be reasonably inferred from it.

I asked you to show me how would you infer from scripture sola scriptura. When we look at the trinity we can see Jesus is called God the Holy Spirit is Called God and the Father is called God. Therefore how do we infer sola scriptura when there is not one place in the Bible that teaches it?

well, that's good, because I'm not building a case for the "bible-only".

Then what are we talking about all this time? I thought sola scriptura means only scripture

no, I wouldn't, would you?

I wouldn't know what else the pillar and foundation for truth means.

so were the fathers before 400 just confused when they referred to New Testament scripture?

They were referring to oral teachings that was inline with scripture.
The Church first had a doctrine then they picked books. They picked books that were inline of the traditions (oral teachings) of Christ.

A few points:

1) The issue of access to personal copies of scripture and interpretation of scripture are two different questions. To conflate them will only serve to confuse.

2) The doctrine of sola scriptura is not concerned with who has access to bibles, only that the scriptures are the sole, infallible, verifiable revelalation of God. As such, when you build doctrines, they should be consonant with God's scriptures. Things that God has not chosen to reveal should not be held over men's heads. If people do not have access to the scripture, but only to a creed, then so be it, as long as the creed reflects the scripture.

The church was there before the cannon, if the Church was fallible then so is the Bible because the church picked the books.

3) Your perception of the relation of scripture and the illiterate masses seems off the mark, so in closing I give you one of my favorite passages from Harry Gamble's book, "Books and Readers in the Early Chuch"

"It may seem paradoxical to say both that Christianity placed a high value on texts and that most Christians were unable to read, but in the ancient world this was no contradiction. In Greco-Roman society the illiterate had access to literacy in a variety of public settings. Recitations of poetry and prose works, dramatic performances in theatres and festivals, declamations in high rhetorical style, street corner philosophical diatribes, commemoritive inscriptions, the posting and reading of official decrees, the routine traffic of legal and commercial documents all brought the fruits of literacy befoer the general population, educating the public in it's uses and popularizing it's conventions...Besides the papyri show that many illiterates had recourse to professional scribes for the composition of letters and contracts, and many of the epitaphs surviving from Greek and Roman anitquity were commissioned on behalf og the illiterate. They were not, then, barred from the practical benefits of literacy nor from an acquaintance with the substance of texts.

If most Christians were illiterate,it did not prevent them from participating in literacy or from becoming familiar with Christian texts. Those who had only a cursory contact with Christianity through missionary preaching or propagande could hardly have failed to notice it's reliance on texts and to hear them quoted. Those who were drawn to Christianity were intensively schooled in it's literature, especially scripture. The extended catechetical proces by which converts came into the church concentrated, at least from the second century onward, upon doctrinal and moral instruction. It certainly did not include learning to read or write**, but it did include close familiarization with the Christian scriptures. Further, an essential element of Christian liturgical gatherings was the reading of scripture. In the early centuries scripture was not read in snippets but long segments. Near the middle of the second century Justin Martyr commented (Apol. 1.67) that in the weekly service of worship "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits." With such regular and lengthy readings, followed by their homiletical exposition, Christians who could not read nevertheless became conversant with the substance of scriptural literature and also with other texts that were occasionally read in the setting of worship. Thus, although the limited extent of individual literacy certainly had a bearing on the composition, trnascription, private use, and authoritative interpretation of Christian texts, it had little adverse effect on the ability of Christians generally to gain a close acquainance with Christian literature. The illiterate Christian found in the public reading of Christian texts at least as large and probably a more consistent opportunity than his pagan counterpart to participate in literacy and become familiar with texts.

Yet because of the importance of scripture to Christianity the church could not be wholly indifferent to literacy. If literacy was never a requirement for membership in the Christian community, it was undoubtedly a primary desideratum of Christian leaders and teachers from the earliest days. A much-cited text characterizes the apostles and Peter and John as "illiterate and uneducated" (agrammatoi kai idiotai Acts 4:13), but the meaning is probably only that they were illiterate in Greek and had no Greek schooling...When early in the second century we begin to encounter indivdual Christian bishops and presbyters - Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Papias of Hierapolis - it is precisely through their writings that we know them."
Pg. 8,9

ken

notice Harry Gamble didn't say the people took the Bible over the Church
God bless

 

[Lotar]

I asked you to show me how would you infer from scripture sola scriptura. When we look at the trinity we can see Jesus is called God the Holy Spirit is Called God and the Father is called God. Therefore how do we infer sola scriptura when there is not one place in the Bible that teaches it?

Then what are we talking about all this time? I thought sola scriptura means only scripture

I wouldn't know what else the pillar and foundation for truth means.

They were referring to oral teachings that was inline with scripture.
The Church first had a doctrine then they picked books. They picked books that were inline of the traditions (oral teachings) of Christ.

The church was there before the cannon, if the Church was fallible then so is the Bible because the church picked the books.

notice Harry Gamble didn't say the people took the Bible over the Church
God bless

El numero uno, this is the PRE, so do not debate here.
El numero dos, sola scriptura means that it is the only infallible source of truth, that does not mean that there are not other sources. Tradition must be read in light of scripture and agree with it, otherwise it is wrong, and that is all sola scriptura means. Therefore, there is no requirement for our sole reasoning for the doctrine to be based on scripture.

 

[II Paradox II]

I asked you to show me how would you infer from scripture sola scriptura. When we look at the trinity we can see Jesus is called God the Holy Spirit is Called God and the Father is called God. Therefore how do we infer sola scriptura when there is not one place in the Bible that teaches it?

I had written up a few paragraphs about this, but I took them out because I figured they would cause more confusion by their incompleteness than clarity. As such, if you give me a few days I can write up a more complete argument for my position. It should be much less prone to confusion than the short version I had written.

I've been meaning to write out my argument for a while now anyways, so this'll give me some motive to go ahead and do so. As such, I'll get back to later this week...

Then what are we talking about all this time? I thought sola scriptura means only scripture

Sure, the words mean that, but the words don't fully express the doctrine. Historical protestantism has taught that the scripture is the sole infallible authority God has given us, but there are other authorities out there for a Christian to refer to. If you read, for instance, Luther's Larger Catechism, you will find a large part of it is dedicated to explicating the creed. It is, however, referred to as a compilation of the teachings of scripture for the simple. It is given that way such that those who cannot read the scriptures for themselves can still know the will of God via simpler secondary authorities (who's authority is derived from it's consonance with scripture):

"Let this suffice concerning the Creed to lay a foundation for the simple, that they may not be burdened, so that, if they understand the substance of it, they themselves may afterwards strive to acquire more, and to refer to these parts whatever they learn in the Scriptures, and may ever grow and increase in richer understanding. For as long as we live here, we shall daily have enough to do to preach and to learn this."
Luther larger Catechism, Ch. X Read The Context

I wouldn't know what else the pillar and foundation for truth means.

well, I know something else it could, and probably does mean. You can refer to prior comments of myself and others for this...

They were referring to oral teachings that was inline with scripture.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I was asking what the fathers of the first 4 centuries were referring to when they talked about "scripture". Were they just talking about the Old Testament? Oral Teachings?

The Church first had a doctrine then they picked books. They picked books that were inline of the traditions (oral teachings) of Christ.

There is some truth to this, but it wouldn't be entirely accurate, and certainly not in the time scale you gave of 4 centuries. For instance, how do you deal with the fact that Peter called Paul's writings "scripture" and that Paul quoted the book of Luke as scripture in 1st Timothy 5:18? What about collections of paul's letters that were already circulating by the end of the first century?

I'm not trying to prove that the canon was complete in the first century, but that your analysis is far too simplistic to accurately reflect the actual historical and biblical data.

The church was there before the cannon, if the Church was fallible then so is the Bible because the church picked the books.

ok. So God couldn't providentially arrange for the church to gather the correct canon without giving the church a perpetual charism of infallibility?

notice Harry Gamble didn't say the people took the Bible over the Church

no, he didn't. But, of course, I wasn't trying to prove that point with that quote either.

ken

 

[orthedoxy]

is it an infallible teaching that the bible is 66 books? If so then where did you get that infallible teaching? Since the Bible doesn’t say which books to accept.

 

[II Paradox II]

is it an infallible teaching that the bible is 66 books? If so then where did you get that infallible teaching? Since the Bible doesn’t say which books to accept.

Is it an infallible teaching? No, our knowledge of the canon is fallible (though I don't believe incorrect), though I believe guided by God such that his church and his people know his words. We know through tradition, reason and the broad witness of christians through the ages which books to accept. There has been broad agreement on the majority of scriptural books and as such we accept them too. There are books that were touchy as far as acceptance, but we, who live these days, accept these based on the judgement of the church in the past.

Do you believe that the canon is an infallible teaching? If so, how do you know the teaching itself is infallible? My point to asking this is not to show the brilliance of my arguments, but to point out that the skepticism you apply to my position is just as corrosive to yours.

one more thing - the scripture does speak of it's own nature as scripture in at least three places in the NT. So to say it doesn't teach on which books are canonical is a bit misleading. It doesn't give a complete list, but the notion of NT scripture is not foreign to the writers of the NT.

ken

 

[orthedoxy]

ken
If you are basing what is scripture on the judgment of the church in the past, aren't you coming up with doctrine from outside the scripture?
Why can't we rely on the past church for other teachings.
Why do we have to believe in the bible only?
As to your question to me the way i know the cannon is an infallible teaching is because Jesus promised that gates of hell can't prevail against the church.
Jesus in john 16:13 he told the disciples he will guide them to all truths.
Eph 2:20 he built the foundation on the apostles not just a book.
jude 3 tells us to contend for the faith of the apostles. The teachings are more then just the writings but the interpretation of the writings.
Therefore we shouldn't come up with new teachings that were not part of the teaching of the apostles and the early church like sola scriptura.
As to the Paul quoting the book of Luke and so on they are not quoting the book but what these people received from Christ. Everything Jesus taught was scripture the way we know what he taught is by what the early Church taught whether by letter or by going back and see how they interpreted scripture.
I don't believe that God gave us only a book and said everyone to read it for himself whoever interpret the Bible right will be saved.
God bless

 

[eldermike]

I don't believe that God gave us only a book and said everyone to read it for himself whoever interpret the Bible right will be saved.

That's not what we believe, or even close.
You are against something that dosn't exist, but this is not the place to debate it, this is PRE. Thanks for understanding.
Eldermike

 

[RhetorTheo]

2 Timothy 3
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

That scripture suggests that the use of scripture is sufficient for a man of God to be thoroughly equipped as a Christian. Although another infallible source might be possible, it wouldn't be necessary.

As to what is scripture, they were likely referring to the OT, and possible together with the apocrypha and certain pseudepigrapha such as The Book of Enoch.

 

[InquisitorKind]

If you are basing what is scripture on the judgment of the church in the past, aren't you coming up with doctrine from outside the scripture?

Everyone reasonably comes to their rule of faith from evidence outside of it. Unless you blindly decided to follow Eastern Orthodoxy (if I'm reading your handle correctly), you arrived at the conclusion that the Scriptures and the church are infallible from sources outside of the Scriptures and the infallible church.

Why do we have to believe in the bible only?

These kinds of responses indicate to us that you're not reading what we're writing. Please demonstrate from II Paradox II's answers where he said that he believes in the "bible only." Direct quotes are recommended.

~Matt

 

[II Paradox II]

If you are basing what is scripture on the judgment of the church in the past, aren't you coming up with doctrine from outside the scripture?

Sure, that was exactly the point mysellf and Lotar were making about the necessity of tradition for certain things. I don't throw out every bit of tradition that comes down the pike, just those that have a bad pedigree, deny the scriptures or sidetrack the faith into worthless speculation. Why do you think we still celebrate Christian holidays, work fundamentally within an Augustinian theological grid, have assurance about the canon, etc...?

Why can't we rely on the past church for other teachings.
Why do we have to believe in the bible only?

we do rely on the past church for many teachings. Hence the reason protestant churches commonly use the ecumenical creeds and theological language and concepts passed down for hundreds of generations. In addition, we commonly adapt liturgical practices from the early believers as well (some churches more than others...)

You have to understand that the issue isn't a blanket rejection of the past or Christian tradition, that would be virtually impossible to do. Even those that try to do this inevitably end up using some elements of Christian tradition, even if they deny they are doing so. The issue for us is that we don't believe that many of the traditions claimed by our Catholic and Orthodox brethren are legitimate or objects of knowledge that should be held over the heads of the faithful as dogma of the church (things such as the marian dogmas). God has revealed his saving truths in the scripture and that is where we should look for knowing those things essential to our salvation.

The church is a source of authority for the Christian, but it's word is *not*
above the words of God in His scriptures.

As to your question to me the way i know the cannon is an infallible teaching is because Jesus promised that gates of hell can't prevail against the church.
Jesus in john 16:13 he told the disciples he will guide them to all truths.
Eph 2:20 he built the foundation on the apostles not just a book.
jude 3 tells us to contend for the faith of the apostles.

And how exactly do you know these words are scripture? You are arguing in a circle because you can't use the words of scripture to verify that church is infallible about it's teaching on scripture.

The teachings are more then just the writings but the interpretation of the writings. Therefore we shouldn't come up with new teachings that were not part of the teaching of the apostles and the early church like sola scriptura.

Whether they taught it is precisely what we are arguing here. Gratuitous begging of the question isn't really necessary or helpful.

As to the Paul quoting the book of Luke and so on they are not quoting the book but what these people received from Christ.

Do you know this or are you just assuming this to make your case?

here is 1st Timothy 5:18:
"For the Scripture says, 'YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,' and 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'"

Perhaps you could explain what these two pieces of scripture are that Paul quotes? The first bit of scripture quoted is Deuteronomy 25:4. The second bit is from Luke 10:7.

Everything Jesus taught was scripture the way we know what he taught is by what the early Church taught whether by letter or by going back and see how they interpreted scripture.

Let me lay out my position here clearly:

I do think the fathers should be consulted when doing our own interpretation. As they were close to the time of the apostles, their words should not be disregarded. However, I don't take this as an absolute principle for several reasons:

1) They were products of their intellectual and cultural environment just as we are. As such, they worked within a cultural structure that in part directed their interpretation of scripture. It doesn't, for instance, take very long to find the strong platonic influence in many of the fathers. In addition, the strongly symbolic interpretation of the Old Testament may likely have been a product not only of apostolic teaching, but reactions to the Jewish teaching and pagan mockery of historical literalism. This is not to say that there works are useless, but that they should be taken critically.

2) We have to be careful that we don't make the mistake of an inconsistent epistemology at this point. Many will criticize the scriptures as being unclear, while at the same time appealing to the early fathers. However, this is just being inconsistent. If the scriptures are unclear, why would anyone think the fathers only 100 or 200 years later would be any easier to read and figure out? In some ways they are, in some they aren't. The fathers are not the scripture, only the commentary. As such, they should be taken as such and not exalted above the words of scripture itself, words whose clarity is at least equal to that of the fathers, men who often just echoed the words of scripture that their minds were full of.

3) Ultimately, the fathers must be read critically because we don't know to what extent they may have imbided of heresies as well as truths. Even while the apostles were alive there were many heresies already existing. We should be careful lest we fall into some of the same potholes that some of the early fathers fell into. Ultimately, it comes down to an issue of where the revelation resides - in scripture, not the fathers. They may be accurate guides to it's interpretation, but they are not the scriptures themselves.

4) The fathers did not deal with every issue. As I'm sure you know, before nicaea there were some rather interesting opinions floating around as to how to view the trinity. Over time the doctrine developed into what we know today. So clearly in the case the earlist fathers did not know best. Another good example would be theories of atonement. Simply put, there were many different theories of atonement floating around and no real unity over time on the issue. Even today there are several held by various Christian groups. I say all this simply to say that the fathers aren't always a help in some issues we face today simply because they never dealt with them, being preoccupied with issues of Christology primarily.

I don't believe that God gave us only a book and said everyone to read it for himself whoever interpret the Bible right will be saved.

That's good, I don't believe that either. God came to earth to seek and save the lost. As part of this process he revealed his will to men in actions, written words and spoken words. These words and actions help us to know the God who saves us, but it isn't their interpretation that saves us, but His grace. The words are there as a guide, but not the thing that saves in itself.

ken

 

[Katmando]

That scripture suggests that the use of scripture is sufficient for a man of God to be thoroughly equipped as a Christian. Although another infallible source might be possible, it wouldn't be necessary.

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Would this verse mean then all governing authority is infallible as well?

As to what is scripture, they were likely referring to the OT, and possible together with the apocrypha and certain pseudepigrapha such as The Book of Enoch.

Then why is it some do not consider "the apocrypha and certain pseudepigrapha such as The Book of Enoch" infallible as well?

 

[pmarquette]

as Hoyle is with card games ....
so is Hermeneutics with Protestant Bible interpretation :
--what does the verse mean ?
historically , culturally , literally ;
--what are the rules of our language and
the type of book ( poetry , history , prophetic , myth ) ?
-- is this an isolated thought or one that repeats itself
over and over ( Is 53.1-3 ; Mat 8.17 ; 1 Ptr 2.24 )

with our catholic brothers , Augustine noted 4 rules
1. literal sense -- says what means in context
2. historical sense -- did take place as described
3. personal sense -- meaning 4 you the reader
4. church sense -- meaning for the church corporate

1 verse does not a doctrine make .... though many
would like to make the book say what it does not ...

 

[RhetorTheo]

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Would this verse mean then all governing authority is infallible as well?

No. That says the authorities are appointed by God and should be followed, not that they are correct.

Then why is it some do not consider "the apocrypha and certain pseudepigrapha such as The Book of Enoch" infallible as well?

They would deny that the early church every looked at anything beside the Hebrew OT as scripture, and say the it was (and remains) self-evident which books are scripture and not. They don't need to look at the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha to know this, they "just know" or they've heard it.

 

[A. believer]

They would deny that the early church every looked at anything beside the Hebrew OT as scripture, and say the it was (and remains) self-evident which books are scripture and not. They don't need to look at the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha to know this, they "just know" or they've heard it.

Who is the "they" you're referring to who would say such a thing?

 

[orthedoxy]

Dear brothers
I'de like to answer the questions and give my input but i don't want to disrespect other people.
I believe it's important when talking about topics like sola scriptura to have people that disagree with the topic to give their input.

 

[A. believer]

Dear brothers
I'de like to answer the questions and give my input but i don't want to disrespect other people.
I believe it's important when talking about topics like sola scriptura to have people that disagree with the topic to give their input.

I believe the only allowable option for you now on CF, anyway, is to invite someone to a formal debate on the topic.