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]

Non sequitor. I didn’t follow this post of yours

[Cronos]

There is more Biblical proof for Sola Scriptura --> then show them. Note: the issue is around the world SOLA i.e. ONLY. No-one is denying that Holy Scripture is critical and important

[Cronos]

Good quote from Irenaues

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

--> and remember what I have repeated ad naeuseum on this thread -- no one denies the criticality and the truth in Scripture, but it is not Scripture ALONE. AND, and... Scripture, Holy Tradition and The Church do NOT, I repeat do NOT contradict each other. If you take a point in Tradition, it does not contradict scripture.

When however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same scriptures

--> who exactly accuses scripture? Not The Church. Rather we had Luther accuse Maccabeus I and II and other books and also turn a sceptical eye on Jude.

"For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (orally)...For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to &‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves."

--> again, I repeat, if something contradicts scripture or tradition or The Church, it is wrong. Scripture, Tradition and The Church do not contradict each other. Hence, there is no secret Gnostic knowledge in Holy Tradition and at no point does Holy Tradition contradict Holy Scripture or The Church.

[Cronos]

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.

The mysteries of the Faith, the core dogma etc. are there in Holy Scripture as in Holy Tradition and The Church. Once more -- they do not contradict each other.

[Cronos]

Actually 203 did not refute it. At no point does 203 prove the SOLA i.e. ONLY Scriptura.

[Cronos]

Do you have anything to refute in post 870?

Let's take one -- you call a lady in a sari a Hindu priest. That's wrong. Do you admit that?

I pray that you realise that you are straying from Christ and return to Christ's Church. Do open your eyes to the Lord and away from your pastor leading you astray.

[BipolarBob]

You've been shown more than enough. Your eyes have blinders. Their is no verse saying exactly word for word what you are looking for. You don't apply the same standard to many of the other practices you utilize and that my friend is a double standard. Example: Apostolic Succession- Where are the twelve that go around preaching the Real Word and healing the multitudes? You believe only what you've been told. So much so that you are unable to reason an alternative. When really confronted, you resort to "Two thousand years of blah blah blah . . . " Mankind and the Gospel have been around longer.

[Cronos]

Jesus didn’t leave us a book, He stays with US, in the form of the Holy Spirit, He left us the scriptures, the church and tradition, all together, bound and one.

[Cronos]

A book that was written by His apostles and disciples who knew Him and took down what He, the Lord God, second person of the Trinity, was saying. --> Ah, you referring to the book that contains the secret words of Christ? Or to the Hadiths that the Orthodox Presbyterians read from?

[Cronos]

The apostolic word authenticates itself. --> Belt, no one argues that The Written Word is authentic or Holy. We're only arguing against the non-biblical phrase SOLA Scriptura. By refuting sola scriptura we do not:
1. refute scripture itself or in any way say it is not Holy and not accurately the Word of God
2. Say that the Holy Tradition or The Church are superior to Scripture -- they are not, they are equal
3. Say that Holy Tradition or The Church can contradict scripture -- they CANNOT.

[Cronos]

Going in to attack a poster's character is not really good for the discussion and proves a lack of points against papertyger's points (incidently pt has been here since 1998 while you have been here only since 2004, so pt isn't a troll. Neither are you for that matter, so let's not toss that word around)

Quoting the scoffer bit or the "I'll dust the dust offa my shoes bit" is a standard statement from a JW or Pentecostal when they've run out of spiels from their pastor. That's not becoming of you.

[Cronos]

I repeat, NONE of your posts in ANY way prove SOLA Scriptura. All of your posts prove that Scripture is Holy, that it is good for learning, that it IS the Word of God and IS True and IS a source of truth.

And no one denies any of those points. The only bone of contention is the NON-BIBLICAL phrase "sola scriptura". It's not in the Bible, anywhere.

[Cronos]

I don't agree to the phrase "sola scriptura" which is non-biblical. That means that I do say that the bible is holy and is the Word of God, but there are traditions that do not contradict it that are holy and are the Word of God too (note: they must not contradict Scripture).

Since sola scriptura is illogical and non-biblical, other practises which are not mentioned in the Bible (like the US, televangelists etc.) are not wrong unless they contradict the Bible. Get it? I do not believe in sola scriptura because "sola scriptura" itself is not sola scriptura.

Where are the twelve that go around preaching the Real Word and healing the multitudes? --> what exactly has that got to do with Apostolic Succession? Apostolic Succession means that the bishop teaching should demonstrably prove that he is NOT making any new innovations but is merely teaching what His predecessor taught and HIS predecessor taught what HIS own predecessor taught, all the way up through the Apostles To Jesus. This is a way to ensure adherence to The Faith.

You cannot contradict The Bible, yes (that's why the pinko ECUSA etc. are just plain wrong), but you can interpret some things wrong if you treat it like an individual. Tell me why did Calvin and Luther disagree on the sacraments and other issues if the bible was sufficient? Neither had tradition, Apostolic Succession to rely upon, so no truth could come out, only approximations.

You are a Calvinist, correct? When you believe in a belief, and quote from the scriptures to prove it, why do your beliefs disagree with that of other Protestants? Even other Calvinists? It's because sola scripture is not enough, it's because SOLA scriptura is non-biblical and is just wrong, it is a tradition of man, not like the Holy TRadition which is from GOd.

[daniel1212]

It does indeed destroy your straw man polemic.

[Cronos]

You mean the polemic about “Sola Scriptura” — a phrase and concept that is itself not in the Bible and so contradicts itself?

[Religion Moderator]

You believe

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[BipolarBob]

The RM has chastised me. I am no longer on this thread. Please remove me from pinging as I will not respond.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>How blasphemous is a humans attempt to do a magic show where they believe they can change a Matzoh and Passover wine into the creator of the universe ?

How hypocritical and myopic is it to bridle at transubstantiation, but not at the incarnation?

Could you re-state your premise,

as it is unclear.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Cronos]

I don't think being corrected means you have to get off the thread. You're not supposed to make it personal, but if you do slip in a post, you aren't booted off the thread, I think.

RM -- please could you clarify this?

[BipolarBob]

I don’t need clarification. The RM was correct and I don’t want another slip. I am removing myself from this thread and nobody else. Time to move on.