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]

the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

[raygunfan]

i agree one hundred percent...

scripture alone led to divisions galore even in luther’s time, he even noticed it...and it continues to this day.

and one of the ‘benefits’ of solo scriptura, in any form, is that the all of that plain and straight forward biblical texts in this post, can all majikally be made to mean something else, again, all thru using the majik wand of sola scirptura....

throw in a few ‘let scripture interpret scripture’ (which is also done using sola scriptura principles, thus defeating the purpose), and our separated brethern can make it says whatever they need to say...

or whatever the little bible church down the streets preacher wants it to say.....

or the next non denominational church a block from there...

and so on, and so on...

[rsobin]

The traditions of men took us from Adam’s perfect walk with God to Sodom in short order.

[BipolarBob]

Oh no!! You’ve done it now. Matthew 15:6-9 is just one example that Jesus fought against traditions of men that contradicted The Word of God. Show me one example of Jesus or his disciples praying to a dead saint for deliverance or help.

[BipolarBob]

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

[FatherofFive]

it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 3:14-15

Let’s look at context and reality:

1. This was written to Timothy
2. Timothy was born in 17 AD

The Scripture Timothy knew from infancy and what Paul is referring to is The Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't written at the time of Timothy’s infancy. This doesn’t mean what some want it to mean. Paul was telling Timothy that Christ did fulfill the OT prophecies, that Timothy was "made wise" for the salvation of Christ. Nowhere do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book.

[BipolarBob]

Do you agree that Sunday worship was changed from Sabbath worship by the authority of your church leadership and that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that this change took place in the age of the apostles? What day did Christ keep (hint Luke 4:16).

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The problem with that argument from II Timothy is that it proceeds to qualify "profitable" as that which is able to make a person "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Which eliminates in one fell swoop any need for the Catholic idea of adding "tradition" to Scripture. If a person is throughly furnished unto all good works by Scripture, then nothing else is needed.

The Catholic arguments for tradition simply don't work (interesting, though, they have to be supporter from Scripture, making Scripture *still* the arbiter, not "the church" or tradition). Jesus did condemn corrupt tradition - because it was tradition that conflicted with the Word of God. Indeed, at several points, Jesus vociferously defies tradition *on that basis*. The traditions that Paul spoke of, well, there is simply no logical basis whatsosver to read in the Catholic meaning of "tradition" - more logically, the traditions that Paul told the Thessalonians to hold to was simply the preaching of the Word that he had given them personally when he was there - which would not have conflicted with the later written Word. Catholic arguments simply beg too many questions to be credible, intellectually.

I do agree that the Bible doesn't teach that some doctrines are "minor" and that we can ignore them - but the fact that this is done so today is not the fault of sloa scriptura. Indeed, one would think that if someone were serious about sola scriptura, it would engender the exact OPPOSITE approach to these doctrines (and indeed, it DOES, among those who actually ARE sola scriptura in practice, rather than just in word). Catholic tradition, on the other hand, is what "allows" people to violate scripture left and right on the basis that "Mother Church said they could."

[Anti-Utopian]

If the both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches claim to follow apostolic oral tradition, how is it that they teach doctrine so differently?

How do I know whose oral traditions are correct?

[Cronos]

True, the traditions of men. However, we talk of the Holy Tradition of God, as handed down by God, Christ Himself through His Apostles. This Holy Tradition was the birthing womb for Scripture, and like Mary was the womb for Christ yet she is subordinate to Him, Holy Tradition too is subordinate to Scripture and in no way contradicts it.

[BipolarBob]

Where did you go Cronos? This ain’t fair to start this and not follow up on what I hoped was a stimulating discussion.

[Cronos]

Matthew 15:6-9 shows Jesus fighting against corruption of Tradition. He points out that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus came to fulfil scripture and Tradition, not to destroy it.

[Desdemona]

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

First off, when the twelve were disciples (as opposed to Apostles), the crucifixion hadn't happened yet, so there was no such thing as a Crucifix at the time.

Second, the history of the Rosary is that it began as a way for the laity who were illiterate at the time to symbolically pray the psalter daily - 150 Our Fathers or Hail Marys to symbolize the 150 psalms that were prayed daily in the monestaries. The beads are a place-keeper. The Rosary as we know it today is a little different, and the development was revealed as all points of Faith are.

[Cronos]

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

[Cronos]

“The Scripture Timothy knew from infancy and what Paul is referring to is The Old Testament. The New Testament wasn’t written at the time of Timothy’s infancy. This doesn’t mean what some want it to mean. Paul was telling Timothy that Christ did fulfill the OT prophecies, that Timothy was “made wise” for the salvation of Christ. Nowhere do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book” —> well put

[Anti-Utopian]

I guess I'll ask you then. If the both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches claim to follow apostolic oral tradition, how is it that they teach doctrine so differently?

How do I know whose oral traditions are correct?

[verga]

Show me one example of Jesus or his disciples praying to a dead saint for deliverance or help. Well it does not specifically mention Jesus or the apostles, but it does show those in heaven sending the prayers to God. If God had recieved them directly there would be no need for the Angels to send them up to God.

Revelation 8:3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. 4 The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.

[Always Right]

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

It is more than sufficient.

[Cronos]

How is this relevant to the question on sola scriptura? You say "nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that this change took place" yet where in the Bible does it explictly state that the Bible is the sole source of all history and doctrine?

To your matter read Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabus and Justin Martyr who observed Sunday as the day of worship. And just after them, you have Dionysius, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian

"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

Barnabas 74 AD. "Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead"

Justin Martyr 140 A..D. "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness, made the world; and Jesus Christ our savior , on the same day rose from the dead."

Didache 80-90 A.D. "And on the day of our lords resurrection, which is the Lord’s day meet more diligently."

Sabbath commemorates a finished creation with rest, the last day of the week. In contrast, Sunday is the dawn of the new day, of a new covenant.

[Anti-Utopian]

Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone": Baptizing by immersion three times, giving the baptized a "drink of milk and honey," forbidding the baptized to take a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. (De Corona 3-4)

Jerome said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law." (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8)

Why aren't these traditions observed anymore?