Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[BNR32FAN]

Obviously, if those books are not part of Holy Scripture, they ought not to be treated as if they are Holy Scripture. But that doesn't affect the principle we refer to as Sola Scriptura.

Then Holy scripture becomes subjective depending on who your speaking to? Correct me if I’m mistaken but those 7 books were canonized as inspired writings.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The question of the thread asked how Sola Scriptura works.

How it "works,"is simply that it delivers to us all that God has revealed to mankind as what we must know.

If there were 30,000 denominations, and each one had its own, different, interpretation of the meaning of that diviner revelation, that would mean the following--

1. The source of all necessary doctrine is agreed to. It's just a matter of correctly understanding it, NOT replacing it or supplementing it.

and

2. What if some church or people does replace or supplement the word of God? The result is right in front of us also.

The churches which posit that there is something else--the churches which oppose Sola Scriptura--have produced as many or more disagreements on how to understand their alternative sources of authority and guidance as they claim happens with Sola Scriptura!

In other words, their reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura magnifies the problem they think they have identified, if anything.

My post was in reference to the post I replied to friend, not the OP.

 

[BNR32FAN]

All right. I've already admitted that some, but not all, opponents of Sola Scriptura mistakenly think SS is about how to interpret the word of God, rather than about it being true.

The question asked how anyone can agree that Scripture is reliable...but nevertheless oppose Sola Scriptura? If it is of God, and God is infallible, and we all think that's what Scripture IS, what is the reason for anybody to argue that it isn't good enough?

What your describing here is not exactly sola scriptura but prima scriptura which everyone agrees on. Sola scriptura says that the scriptures are the only authority on God’s word. The apostles themselves are evidence against this very idea. They were the church not the scriptures.

 

[Albion]

you tried to label me that way despite the fact I made no such claim.

I did no such thing.

I merely said that there are some people who feel a certain way, and that is true--many, in fact, here on CF.

Long before this thread, there were such people giving that view to CF readers.

the question IS NOT whether scripture is reliable.

Maybe and maybe not. It is one thing to say that a source of information (the Bible, for instance) is reliable...but quite another to say that that same source is not adequate.

So the question becomes this--can any such source of information be reliable if it's not complete?

becasue SS is a man made presumption not found in scripture.

I have to disagree. The Holy Scriptures in many places state that they are from God and are of highest worth. All that Sola Scriptura asserts is that we are right to take the Scriptures that way.

 

[Albion]

Then Holy scripture becomes subjective depending on who your speaking to?

Not at all.

Correct me if I’m mistaken but those 7 books were canonized as inspired writings.

They never were accepted as inspired writings by the whole church, not from the beginning of the Church era and not even among the whole of the Hebrews prior to the founding of the Christian Church.

As a result, they were in question at the time of the councils that canonized Scripture. Almost all the other books of our Bible had long been accepted as inspired by teh churches of the Christian world. Only these and three or four of the NT books were in question.

Those others were determined to be inspired, BUT the Apocryphal books were included ONLY PROVISIONALLY. No doctrines are based upon them, and they have very little in common with the other books of either the Old or New Testaments.

In the 16th century, the Reformers removed them from the Bible proper but continued to consider them important to read for instruction in the history and values of the ancient Hebrews.

There is where your objection arises. Luther "removed" them. Was he right? Were the other Reformers who shared the same view right?

All things considered, they might have been right and they might have been wrong. It's not as though these books were always considered to be inspired.

BUT HERE IS THE CLINCHER. Within a few years, in the same 16th Century, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH removed some of them from the Bible as well!

So either everyone is wrong or no one is wrong! And the history of the books makes a solid case for these books which were only provisionally carried in earlier editions of the Holy Scriptures to be set aside as valuable but not inspired.

 

[BobRyan]

I've seen SS believers do all three.

I see them do the first one and now and then the second one ... it is only among those who oppose SS that we see a person resorting to 2 and 3.

 

[BobRyan]

or we could just do as Paul commanded Timothy to do. "Listen to the Church" the "bulwark of truth"

Gal 1:8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

2Cor 11:
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Acts 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 (spoken by the Apostle Paul) were so.

Here we see Christ giving us the example of sola-scriptura testing of tradition and doctrine

Mark 7
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[concretecamper]

The Holy Scriptures in many places state that they are from God and are of highest worth.

this IS NOT what SS claims.

All that Sola Scriptura asserts is that we are right to take the Scriptures that way

I dont need to disagree, there are plenty of SS believers who can argue with you over this.

 

[concretecamper]

Gal 1:8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

2Cor 11:
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Acts 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 (spoken by the Apostle Paul) were so.

none of this counters what Paul told Timothy. In addition, none of the shows support for SS.

 

[Albion]

this IS NOT what SS claims.

SS of course is based on Scripture...and that is what Scripture itself says about the nature of Holy Scripture.

SS does not say that Scripture is self-interpreting or that every last person will understand the contents correctly.

And SS does not say that everything that can be known is included somewhere or other in the Bible.

What the principle we call SS says is that Scripture contains all essential doctrine. There are innumerable objections to that which people and some churches have advanced, but SS is not really obscure or even complicated.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not at all.


They never were accepted as inspired writings by the whole church, not from the beginning of the Church era and not even among the whole of the Hebrews prior to the founding of the Christian Church.

As a result, they were in question at the time of the councils that canonized Scripture. Almost all the other books of our Bible had long been accepted as inspired by teh churches of the Christian world. Only these and three or four of the NT books were in question.

Those others were determined to be inspired, BUT the Apocryphal books were included ONLY PROVISIONALLY. No doctrines are based upon them, and they have very little in common with the other books of either the Old or New Testaments.

In the 16th century, the Reformers removed them from the Bible proper but continued to consider them important to read for instruction in the history and values of the ancient Hebrews.

There is where your objection arises. Luther "removed" them. Was he right? Were the other Reformers who shared the same view right?

All things considered, they might have been right and they might have been wrong. It's not as though these books were always considered to be inspired.

BUT HERE IS THE CLINCHER. Within a few years, in the same 16th Century, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH removed some of them from the Bible as well!

So either everyone is wrong or no one is wrong! And the history of the books makes a solid case for these books which were only provisionally carried in earlier editions of the Holy Scriptures to be set aside as valuable but not inspired.

Ok I believe I remember reading something to that effect about them being deuterocanical and not intended for the formulation of doctrine. To my knowledge these books really don’t contain anything relative to support any new doctrines anyway. Although RCC advocates sometimes try to use Maccabees to support the doctrine of purgatory. Thanks for sharing that info.

 

[BobRyan]

or we could just do as Paul commanded Timothy to do. "Listen to the Church" the "bulwark of truth"

Gal 1:8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

2Cor 11:
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Acts 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 (spoken by the Apostle Paul) were so.

Here we see Christ giving us the example of sola-scriptura testing of tradition and doctrine

Mark 7
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

none of this counters what Paul told Timothy.

It qualifies it.

Both-AND -- not -- either-OR


All of it shows support for SS.

 

[concretecamper]

SS of course is based on Scripture

it is a man made idea which scripture doeant support. You can of course prove me wrong by citing the specific scripture.

and that is what Scripture itself says about the nature of Holy Scripture.

circular argument if I ever saw one.

What the principle we call SS says is that Scripture contains all essential doctrine

which scripture doesn't claim. You can of course prove me wrong by citing the specific scripture.

There are innumerable objections to that which people and some churches have advanced, but SS is not really obscure or even complicated

there ARE NOT INNUMERABLE OBJECTIONS. There is only ONE objection. SS in not scriptural. I'll wait for someone to post scripture that supports your post. I suspect I'll wait and wait and wait and we will move onto another topic.

 

[concretecamper]

Gal 1:8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Henry VIII, White, Smith, et al

2Cor 11:
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

same cast of characters as above.

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

I agree that Old Covenant traditions were a problem.

 

[Albion]

it is a man made idea which scripture doeant support.

No more or less than Scripture itself is (a manmade idea).

As I noted before, Sola Scriptura, despite all the naysayers' intricate explanations for why it supposedly isn't any good, could hardly be any simpler or more direct.

Sola Scriptura says "This is the word of God, and nothing can beat or equal that for reliability, so let's go with it instead of something else."

 

[Barney2.0]

Im a bit puzzled about Martin Luther’s claim to sola scriptura when he removed 7 books from it.

Martin Luther: The final authority of the Christian Faith is Scripture Alone.

Also Martin Luther: I get to decide what is and isn’t Scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

I'll wait for someone to post scripture that supports your post. I suspect I'll wait and wait and wait and we will move onto another topic.

No more or less than Scripture itself is (a manmade idea).

As I noted before, Sola Scriptura, despite all the naysayers' intricate explanations for why it supposedly isn't any good, could hardly be any simpler or more direct.

Sola Scriptura says "This is the word of God, and nothing can beat or equal that for reliability, so let's go with it instead of something else."

I called that one

Anyone else?

 

[Albion]

What do you think you called?

 

[Albion]

What your describing here is not exactly sola scriptura but prima scriptura which everyone agrees on. Sola scriptura says that the scriptures are the only authority on God’s word.

There I was describing the basis for belief in Sola Scriptura. It is simple enough--we all say that the Bible is the word of God, so what else could be its equal? Obviously, nothing can. Not the theories of famous bishops or theologians, not a legend of longstanding, not the decrees of the delegates to a church council, etc. None of that.

 

[Albion]

Martin Luther: The final authority of the Christian Faith is Scripture Alone.

Also Martin Luther: I get to decide what is and isn’t Scripture.

Anyone who imagines that Luther felt he had invented God's truth or that he alone among Christians could perceive it, such a person is sadly mistaken about Luther.