Yet Another Sola Scriptura Thread

[SQLservant]

Hi all,

Whether you believe in it or not, what have been the best arguments in favor of this doctrine that you have seen? I'm working on fleshing out why I believe things to be the way I do, and I thought that since I do not adhere to this idea, I would do well to hear the most convincing arguments for it.

What were some of the best that you've heard?

 

[L0NEW0LF]

God is the author. Amen.

 

[ebedmelech]

The first and most prominent reason I can think of is if the bible is not authoritative then anything a leader of a Church wants to teach goes, there's no guidance or doctrines that the church has to hold or live by.

The bible has stood the test of time as far as being historically accurate and prophetically accurate. Archaeology gives credence to the scriptures as well as extra biblical writings.

As early as Moses you see God giving instructions that Moses wrote down from God telling the people how they were to live, and you see it all through the scriptures.

History also teaches the early Churches held the scriptures as authoritative, that is why there's so much manuscript evidence out there.

Then you have the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which again gives heavy evidence that the churches were guided by the scriptures.

Here's a nice read on the principle of Sola Scriptura: http://www.equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

 

[SQLservant]

Those arguments are for why one should believe the Scriptures. Accepting or rejecting Sola Scriptura doesn't mean one doesn't believe the Bible or its divine authorship. Sola Scriptura means that one should believe ONLY the Bible. No one is disputing that the Bible is the word of God, or that it is trustworthy, but is it (or ought it be) the ONLY source of teaching and practice for God's Church? What are the best arguments you've heard for that?

 

[ebedmelech]

Those arguments are for why one should believe the Scriptures. Accepting or rejecting Sola Scriptura doesn't mean one doesn't believe the Bible or its divine authorship. Sola Scriptura means that one should believe ONLY the Bible. No one is disputing that the Bible is the word of God, or that it is trustworthy, but is it (or ought it be) the ONLY source of teaching and practice for God's Church? What are the best arguments you've heard for that?

I corrected that link.

Sola Scriptura in a nutshell is:

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

 

[Prodigal Son1]

No one is disputing that the Bible is the word of God, or that it is trustworthy, but is it (or ought it be) the ONLY source of teaching and practice for God's Church?

It seems to me that if the inspired word of God was meant to be the sole authority it was say so, somewhere in the scriptures.

Christ chose and appointed men over His Church. He gave them instructions to go out and preach the Gospel. The scriptures tell us He spoke parables to the multitudes, but to His disciples He explained all things. The scriptures tell us that Christ did many others things, that were not written down.

Christ built a Church during His ministry. He did not write, or have scribed, anything. When He commissioned the disciples to go out He did not give instructions to pass out the written word.

Scriptures tell us to hold to the traditions learned, by word or epistle.

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

Scriptures tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and the place that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known.

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.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,

Scriptures tell us that they are 'profitable' to teach, reprove, correct, and to instruct. Profitable goes with those things and is not solely sufficient. Teaching was a commandment of Christ to the disciples.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

If scriptures were the sole authority why would scriptures tell us to obey our prelates/leaders?

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Scriptures tell us God set the order of authority in His Church.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept of 'sole authority', but for me sole authority is all that is needed and scriptures do not say that. Scriptures become subject to the interpretation of man. One has to exert an authority to say his interpretation is correct over another person's interpretation. If scriptures were the sole authority, wouldn't we all have the same interpretation?

 

[SQLservant]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone! The link from CRI was a good starting point, though I did see some goalpost-moving and misrepresentation.

Just to clarify, I'm not looking for arguments why Sola Scriptura is false, nor arguments about why the Bible is authoritative, because I already believe both those things. An example would be arguing from Scripture, using verses like Deut. 4:2 or Rev. 22:18-19 or 1 Cor. 4:6 or 2 Tim. 3:16. Another example would be using quotes from Fathers to make the case that they accepted only Scripture as an authority, or saying that since the Bible is the only thing we know to have been preserved without change due to empirical evidence, it's the only thing we can really depend on.

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, feel free to say why. If you don't believe in it, if there was ever an argument that made you wonder, please share it!

Thanks all; God bless.

 

[ebedmelech]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone! The link from CRI was a good starting point, though I did see some goalpost-moving and misrepresentation.

Just to clarify, I'm not looking for arguments why Sola Scriptura is false, nor arguments about why the Bible is authoritative, because I already believe both those things. An example would be arguing from Scripture, using verses like Deut. 4:2 or Rev. 22:18-19 or 1 Cor. 4:6 or 2 Tim. 3:16. Another example would be using quotes from Fathers to make the case that they accepted only Scripture as an authority, or saying that since the Bible is the only thing we know to have been preserved without change due to empirical evidence, it's the only thing we can really depend on.

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, feel free to say why. If you don't believe in it, if there was ever an argument that made you wonder, please share it!

Thanks all; God bless.

SQLservant, I'm not following your request. The point of Sola Scriptura is the authority of the scriptures. So when you say " nor arguments about why the Bible is authoritative" that is the very point.

The argument of Sola Scriptura was that what is written in the scriptures took precedent of the teachings of the Church.

I'm not clear of what you're asking, but no doubt those scriptures you cite make the point of Sola Scriptura as well as a reading of Psalm 119.

My point I is if you don't want proof of why the scriptures are the authority over the church, then your not speaking to Sola Scriptura because that's what it is.

Perhaps what you're asking for is scriptural support of Sola Scriptura as well as the extra-biblical evidences like writings of the Church Fathers?

Take a look at this link: SOLA SCRIPTURA AND THE EARLY CHURCH - What did the Early Church believe about the authority of Scripture? • ChristianAnswers.Net

I think that's along the lines of your request.

 

[SQLservant]

Thanks for your patience... I'm told I say everything except what I mean, sometimes!

I guess what I was seeing there was all evidence as to why Scripture is said to have authority, even prime authority, but not so much about it having exclusive authority in the Church. The Bible is a sure source for doctrine and practice (when properly understood), but I didn't see a whole lot for it being the ONLY such source (some arguments were posed that caught my eye, but they weren't detailed in the first article). I'll take a look at your second link now.

 

[childofdust]

Hi all,

Whether you believe in it or not, what have been the best arguments in favor of this doctrine that you have seen? I'm working on fleshing out why I believe things to be the way I do, and I thought that since I do not adhere to this idea, I would do well to hear the most convincing arguments for it.

What were some of the best that you've heard?

I also do not believe in/adhere to SS. But I come from a background that does. So I can understand at least some reasons for it.


My people (the Anabaptists) lived in a time and place where what it meant to be “Christian” or part of the “Church,” in either Protestant or Catholic lands and areas, was virtually the same thing as being a citizen of the state. Church and State were intertwined. Every single person in the entire state or nation was Christian because they were citizens. But, as I'm sure you or anyone else can imagine, there's no way that every single person could really be a Christian in the sense that that name implies. In fact, most weren't. And so if you have a system of government and a society in which most people really aren't followers of Christ, but they, nevertheless, are deemed to be so, you're going to have a lot of corruption in that “Church.” You're going to have a lot of things from the “world” intruding on the holy things of Christian faith. So one thing that embracing SS did (once you had the bible in a language you could understand) was it enabled you to divorce the Church from the State or to take up a contrary position against the State. Because once you make the text itself the only final authority on the matter, you are, effectually, cutting away at the power of the State-Church and putting it into the hands of the common people. Suddenly, the common people are becoming empowered. Not only that, but it also has the possibility to free the church from rampant corruption due to the power bestowed upon people who really aren't Christians at all. So in that day and time, SS was a means of overcoming oppressive and corrupt systems that influenced both civil government and the Christian church. All that is not to say that SS didn't have negative consequences as well. But that was a positive one.

 

[KimberlyAA]

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. I believe that because I believe Scripture is inspired by God from beginning to end and I wouldn't look anywhere else for salvation and holiness.

 

[ebedmelech]

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura is quite inherent in the bible. I think that if one simply reads Psalm 119 there is no way to come away with any other understanding.

Listen to these verses al Psalm 119:

9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word.

11 Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You.

16 I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word.

17 Deal bountifully with Your servant, That I may live and keep Your word.

20 May Your lovingkindnesses also come to me, O LORD, Your salvation according to Your word;

41 May Your lovingkindnesses also come to me, O Lord, Your salvation according to Your word;
42 So I will have an answer for him who reproaches me, For I trust in Your word.

This can go on and on. In this Psalm and it is stressing that God's word is our guide. It does this throughout 176 verses...so how someone cannot see Sola
Scriptura kind of boggles my mind when you look to the rest of scripture.

You have Jesus even looking at scripture as authoritative in saying "have you not read?"

Matt 12:5:
Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Matt 19:4:
And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

Matt 21:42:
Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘ THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?

When reading such verses it *should* be clear that God's word is the authority.

My question would be how can one not see it?

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't see the gospel as an overly complicated value/belief system and it is very open to many ways of expression through cultural practices and tradition. So to say that revelation goes beyond scripture seems a little absurd as what else can you include, or did Christ forget something? Its product is only going to complicate, legalize and in the end pervert the gospel message.

The foundation of the gospel message is pretty clear in the bible and to include unbiblical values is missing the point and seems to only seek alter agendas or at least at the time of their conception. Tradition and culture marry well into the gospel but not when it reshapes it or add on to it; instead tradition and culture should only support the gospel.

Paul shows us in 1 Corinthians 9 that the gospel demands us to use cultural practices and traditions to support the gospel but never at the expense of the gospel and never above Christ's law. The Bible does show us that tradition is a tool for the gospel not a requirement and at the same time it shows how how tradition can corrupt so how we approach and use tradition needs to be taken seriously. Calling tradition extra revelation like the surprise at the bottom of a cereal box just simply misses the point.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The Father gave the words to Christ, and says of any man trangress and abide not in His doctrine, he hath not God, His words are the words of life. Like letting God be true and every man a liar. Heres just a few...



Jesus said...


John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them

And these are who he prayed for

John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Now gets specific as to who else he prays for

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Why? Because they received his word (first verse)

Mat 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

This is why they are giving thanks (here)

1Thes 2:3 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

So again...

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

And He says to them...

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them

Ok... so...

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation

Which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him



Heb 2:1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

These God bore witness to also ...

 

[Fireinfolding]

These too might help for better determining.

We know God spake by the prophets of old, that much is clear, Hebrews says God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets as He did unto the people by Moses but (as Peter says) hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son (even Moses instructs by the mouth of God) to hear Him of whom Moses bear witness to. That He would raise up a prophet (to speak) all that He (God) shall command Him.

So when Jesus says He wasnt speaking of himself, or spake as the Father gave him a commandment this is confirming Moses words. Just as Jesus said MY doctrine is NOT MINE (But His who sent me) thus he that abideth NOT in the doctrine of Christ hath NOT God even as Moses bears witness that God would give such a commandment in Christs speaking.

So Jesus Christ (The Word) made flesh are the words of God (believest thou not I am in the Father and the Father dwelleth in me?). I do nothing of MYSELF.

Shows its twofold, abide in ME and MY WORDS (which are NOT His but The Fathers words) even as Jesus said. Just really kool how in accord you can find these things when looking into them.

So they are very much in accord. God by Moses distinguishing the words which come (by Christ) and Christ (who come after) confirming the same (even by the way He speaks) he is showing it

Its an oldie but a goodie, where the mystery of the fellowship can be shown For example...

Duet 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him


John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.


Duet 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Likewise...

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken , the same shall judge him in the last day.


John 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.


The apostles note this as well here

Acts 17:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

And in respects to the same says...

Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Of his apostles (he that received you) receiveth me (and he that receiveth me) the one who sent even me why?

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them

Which is why is says

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

And that in respects to what is "spoken" John speaks to the doctrine (his words)

He that transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine (the words) of Christ hath not God

Why?

John 7:6 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

He that abideth in the doctrine (the words) of Christ (whose doctrine) was not his hath both the Father and the Son

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

So if a man love me he will keep my sayings and my Father will love him and WE make OUR abode with him. In otherwords one who abides in Jesus doctrine hath both the Father and the Son (because Jesus doctrine was not His) as he said....My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. Or the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

So pretty kool if you ask me. Sola words of life

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken , the same shall judge him in the last day.

He can be kind of persuasive, and only in a eternal life/ death kind of way.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Those arguments are for why one should believe the Scriptures. Accepting or rejecting Sola Scriptura doesn't mean one doesn't believe the Bible or its divine authorship. Sola Scriptura means that one should believe ONLY the Bible. No one is disputing that the Bible is the word of God, or that it is trustworthy, but is it (or ought it be) the ONLY source of teaching and practice for God's Church? What are the best arguments you've heard for that?

Says here...

1Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

And so we know

That the man of God be perfect and fully funished is by the scripture

Evern as it says here...


2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And that even from a child unto the same

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


Given Jesus said they are they which testify of me, and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God , the same is shown in the preaching of Philip (whereby) the faith of Jesus Christ is established (even out of the book of Isaiah)

Here...

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, (Isaiah) and preached unto him Jesus.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


Written that ye might believe

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

And...

Ephes 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


So its by the faith of Jesus Christ, which come by hearing, and these are written that ye might believe, and its after hearing the gospel (the power of God) by the preaching of Jesus Christ you are sealed with His Spirit (and this) after having both heard and believed) then sealed.

Again...

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The ministers given the church, are to speak the oracles of God, utilizing the same (by which) faith both come and the man of God be perfect even as our Lord Jesus Christ is the perfect man we are to grow into.

Ephes 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Even as He says...

Luke 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.


So again (snipped)


2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2Ti 3:17That the man of God may be perfect,

How can you add to perfect really?

Theres always a little Yeah hath God not said stuff added all the time, by ministers of another, sure.