Is Sola Scriptura biblical? {Open)

www.cronos.com ^ | 31-May-2010 | Self Topic

[Cronos]

1. Where does the Bible claim sola scriptura?

2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." --> it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable i.e. helpful. the entire verse from 14 to 17 says "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 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. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"
3. Where else do we have the term "sola scriptura" in the Bible?

4. Matthew 15 - Jesus condemns corrupt tradition, not all tradition. At no point is the basic notion of traidition condemned

5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brehtern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"

6. 1 Timothy 3:14-15

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

note that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is The Church of the Living God

7. Nowhere does Scripture reduce God's word down to Scripture ALONE. Instead the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is found in The Church: in Tradition (2 Th 2:15, 3:6) and in the Church teaching (1 Pet 1:25, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Mt 18:17). This supports the Church principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone'.

8. The New Testament was compiled at the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgements to Rome for the Pope's approval.

9. Yet, the people HAD the Canon, the Word of God before the scriptures were compiled, and even before some were written

10. Books that were revered in the 1st and 2nd centuries were left out of canon. Book slike the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. Why?

11. There were disputes over 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, yet they are in Scripture. Whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?

12. How are Protestants sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)?

13. Or do Protestants have a fallible collection of infallible documents? And how do they know that Jude is infallible? And how do they know that the Epistle of Barnabus is not?

14. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

[Cronos]

Ok, so you then AGREE that the fallible Church councils and Patriarchs through the grace of God through His Holy Tradition gave us the compiled canon? You got your Bible through The Church? None of these points however prove that SOLA scriptura is anything but incorrect.

[BipolarBob]

"Furthermore, do you deny that Sunday was not the day when our Saviour rose in accordance with scripture? "

I do not deny that my Lord arose on Sunday because He rested on the Sabbath day in death just as he done in life. There is no contradiction.

[milagro]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) "The Word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14) "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)

The WORD is Christ--and He told His disciples, "He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own, they belong to the Father who sent me. All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:24-27)

The Bible records the teaching of God as it was given to those who believed in Him--but what gives LIFE to this teaching is not the written words themselves, but the Holy Spirit Christ promises to send to those who believe in Him, and which comes not from the human mind which does the reading of the written word, but from the "mind of God" which sent His WORD to earth in the Jesus the Christ. Paul describes this beautifully in Galatians 4:4--

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father'. So you are no longer a slave [to sin and the law]; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir[of the Kingdom of Heaven]."

To me--without the Holy Spirit's presence in our hearts, given to us "by grace through faith"--the Bible is just another "book". But with the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts--and minds--the Bible becomes "living bread!"

And the more we "read, mark, and inwardly digest" that "bread", and allow the Holy Spirit to reign in our hearts and minds, then--as Paul writes in Ephesians 4:14:--

"...we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body [of the church], joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."

[BipolarBob]

None of these points however prove that SOLA scriptura is anything but incorrect.

see my post #38

[Cronos]

Scripture referred to in Timothy is Jewish Scripture. Revelation wasn't written yet, and neither was the Gospel of John. Do you remove them from your list of scripture?

The Word of God is more than just scripture. That IS the unified whole.

If you say that The Holy SPirit guided all Christians into a knowledge of what Scripture was, why exactly did many hold the Didache and the Epistle of Clement and the Acts of Paul to be scripture? And those were good, what of those who held the Gospel of Thomas to be scripture?

And on what basis do you think that Revelation was added? Most didn't have that in their list of canon until the Council of Hippo.

[Cronos]

Man shall not live by bread alone. Where does it say that Man shall live by the SCRIPTURES ALONE? Remember that the Word of God is more than just Scriptures.

[Cronos]

Exactly, so Sunday is the day of joy and you keep Sabbath Holy. Sabbath was not replaced. That is a day of the Old Covenant and should be kept holy. The Day of Christ’s rising is a symbol of the New Covenant.

[BipolarBob]

"Exactly, so Sunday is the day of joy and you keep Sabbath Holy. Sabbath was not replaced. That is a day of the Old Covenant and should be kept holy. Allrighty then. That particular Sunday was a day of joy and celebration that our Lord overcame death,sin and tribulation. So, how do you keep the Sabbath (seventh day) holy?

[Cronos]

Remember, one must not read excerpts (that is a very characteristic failing of groups outside The Church), but read in context. 1 Corinthians 4 says:

1So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. 6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

This really has nothing to do with scripture. It's about judging a person (in this case Paul). Read in context..

Holy Tradition in NO way contradicts scripture. It can't.

[verga]

Is that supposed to mean something other than God hears prayers?

Thanks for not reading the entire post.

How did the prayers get to God?, They were pased on from the Angels that recieved them.

[aruanan]

Where does it say that Man shall live by the SCRIPTURES ALONE? Remember that the Word of God is more than just Scriptures.

In the context of Deuteronomy 8:3, that's exactly what it's referring to, specifically whatever he had dictated to Moses.

[OneWingedShark]

‘Tradition’ like ‘ceremony’ can be either beneficial or harmful. The problem with both is that oftentimes the underlying reason/understanding for either the tradition or ceremony are lost and it becomes “something we’ve always done.”

‘Tradition’ can be likened to language in this regard; it is something that children learn as part of their growing-up. However, literacy and linguistic understanding may be lost if the parent-generation fails to transmit its knowledge to the child-generation. {On the individual level there is also the capability of the child to consider; some will not be able to grasp language as readily as others and may never acquire the ability.} There was an experiment done by an ancient king {Persian, IIRC} who decreed that a certain segment of children (the test group) were not to hear any language spoken for the purpose of discovering what language they would “naturally” speak (and therefore which language was, by nature, superior). The result of this experiment was that the children died. {A surprising outcome that underscores the notion that nature abhors a vacuum, and that it is not possible for language to develop spontaneously.}

Now, keeping that in mind; if God is able to interact with humans, than He can provide the relief from that destructive ‘vacuum of knowledge & understanding’ Himself. The Holy Spirit’s purpose, declared by Jesus in John 14:26 is as follows:
(New International Version)
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

IOW, God Himself, who is spirit and “[...] his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” [John 4:24], is fully capable of teaching the ‘language’ of Spirit to a believer without human ‘help.’ Remember that Jesus said that God is able to raise up from the stones “children of Abraham,” this was a slap in the face to the pride that some of his fellow-nationals had about being God’s chosen people; like many things that people “take pride in” they tend to actually be responsibilities that are rather somber. {If we as Christians are “Ambassadors for Christ” to this fallen world, then think about the responsibility that entails, think about the impact your actions and attitude have in that capacity; YOU are representing all perfection and all Good to the world.} It’s actually a humbling {and slightly terrifying} thought to consider responsibilities in the context of God’s sovereignty. {As the Psalmist observed: “What is man that Thou art mindful of him?”}

So, my conclusion is that ‘tradition’ is NOT equal to scripture; it is FAR, FAR subordinate to it. Jesus himself said in Mark 2:27, of the ‘biggest’/’longest’ tradition in Judaism: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” This subordinates tradition to man; Jesus shows in His actions that He came for _man_, not ‘tradition;’ and while tradition and ceremony [the feasts and fasts of Judaism] are foreshadowings of that action, that action is NOT dependent on them, but they are dependent on that action.

[OneWingedShark]

Mark 2:27 (New International Version)
Then he [Jesus] said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Luke 14:5 (New International Version)
Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?”

[My hearts in London - Everett]

"Jesus came to fulfil scripture and Tradition"

Really? Could you give the relevant scripture passage? That's a new one on me. My Bible says He came to fulfill the law.

[OneWingedShark]

>I’m asking about SOLA Scriptura here. Is Scripture ALONE sufficient? Where does Scripture say that?

To be absolutely technical, no scripture alone is not all that is needed... James says that faith w/o works is dead and that “BY works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” [James 2:24]

[Hacksaw]

Show me one example where Christ or his disciples wore rosary beads or crucifixes or used them.

Jesus and the disciples were supposed to wear a crucifix BEFORE he was crucified? C'mon, the anti's can do better than THAT! That's like asking for an example where George Washington waved the Confederate Battle Flag.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

Christ warned His disciples (and us by way of scripture) that traditions of elders of the church might over shadow God’s commandments ~ Matthew 13:3. Christ wasn’t making light of the traditions observed by elders of the church because He followed many of them himself and He taught the disciples to also. Christ taught that tradition should never be on par with scripture. Traditions don’t have God’s authority by themselves. Scripture alone has God’s divine and final authority pertaining to faith.

[OneWingedShark]

It's interesting to see the parallels between Catholicism and Islam in this regard. Both consider themselves to have sprung forth unaided and in final form from a primeval source, yet both, in reality, are the product of a long period that saw the gradual development of a system of traditions which were then crystallised by the priestly caste and "retro-engineered" back onto their myth of primeval origin.

Somewhat off topic, but...
I submit, for your imagination, the idea of a mingled/hybrid Catholicism & Islam. Imagine it as the one-world-religion endorsed in Revelation (i.e. causing all of humanity to worship the image of the Beast, IIRC).

[Cronos]

There is wisdom in what you say, yes. However, my point was:
1. it is not Scripture ALONE -- that is not, well, scriptural
2. SCripture and Holy Tradition, together, yes. They do not contradict each other.

[Cronos]

Catholicism and Islam do not mix. Read up on Suleiman the Magnificent who reached out feelers to Protestant groups and proposed a union since both (according to him at least) had common beliefs.

In On War against the Turk, Luther is actually less critical of the Turks than he is of the Pope, whom he calls an anti-Christ, or the Jews, whom he describes as "the Devil incarnate". He urges his contemporaries to also see the good aspects in the Turks, and refers to some who were favourable to the Ottoman Empire, and "who actually want the Turk to come and rule, because they think that our German people are wild and uncivilized - indeed that they are half-devil and half-man"

The Ottomans also felt closer to the Protestants than to the Catholics. At one point, a letter was sent from Suleiman the Magnificent to the "Lutherans" in Flanders, claiming that he felt close to them, "since they did not worship idols, believed in one God and fought against the Pope and Emperor".

This notion of religious similarities was again taken up in epistolar exchanges between Elizabeth I of England and Sultan Murad III.[15] In one correspondence, Murad entertained the notion that Islam and Protestantism had "much more in common than either did with Roman Catholicism, as both rejected the worship of idols", and argued for an alliance between England and the Ottoman Empire

In a 1574 letter to the "Members of the Lutheran sect in Flanders and Spain", Murad III made considerable efforts to highlight the similarities between Islamic and Protestants principles, at times twisting reality. He wrote

"As you, for your part, do not worship idols, you have banished the idols and portraits and "bells" from churches, and declared your faith by stating that God Almighty is one and Holy Jesus is His Prophet and Servant, and now, with heart and soul, are seeking and desirous of the true faith; but the faithless one they call Papa does not recognize his Creator as One, ascribing divinity to Holy Jesus (upon him be peace!), and worshiping idols and pictures which he has made with his own hands, thus casting doubt upon the oneness of God and instigating how many servants to that path of error"
—1574 letter of Murad III to the "Members of the Lutheran sect in Flanders and Spain".

the military activism of the Ottoman Empire on the southern European front probably was the reason why Lutheranism was able to survive in spite of the opposition of Charles V and reach recognition at the Peace of Augsburg in September 1555

Or read about Turco-Calvinism.

Besides the obvious differences between the two religious, there are also many similarities in their outlooks and attitudes to faith, especially in respect to textual criticism, iconoclasm, tendencies to fundamentalism, rejection of marriage as a sacrament, or the rejection of monastic orders.

Islam and Protestantism have in common a reliance on textual criticism of the Book. In a sense, Islam thus has a claim to being the first "Reformation", long before Christian reformation in the 17th century.[96] This historical precedence combines to fact that Islam incorporates to a certain extent the Jewish and Christian traditions, recognizing the same God and defining Jesus as a prophet, as well as recognizing Hebrew prophets, thus having a claim to encompassing all the religions of the Book

Iconoclasm: In Martin Luther "On War Against the Turk" he says

"It is part of the Turks’ holiness, also, that they tolerate no images or pictures and are even holier than our destroyers of images. For our destroyers tolerate, and are glad to have, images on gulden, groschen, rings, and ornaments; but the Turk tolerates none of them and stamps nothing but letters on his coins."