[RnMomof7]

LOL... calling in the troops :)

Now for Sola scriptura

Lets define it first

" What then is sola scriptura? " The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

Jesus believed in Sola scriptura, Never did Jesus refer to oral tradition to prove or defend truth.He always referred back to scriptures

The only time Jesus spoke to oral tradition it was to object to it,

Mark 7 : 7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Jesus used scripture more that a 100 times in His teachings, but never oral tradition..

Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: "IT IS WRITTEN"

Luke 10:26-28
26He said unto him,B> What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Acts 17: 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (the correct definition of sola scriptura)

2 Timothy 3:from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

1 Corth.4: 6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

2 Corinthians 1:13For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end"

1 Corth 14:37If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. The Church Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura:

"They[heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...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 by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 Sola Scriptura ! "I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)

Sola Scriptura !

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them."
- Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9

Sola Scriptura !

"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?"
- Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

Sola Scriptura !

"We use Scripture to answer heresy and preceive that it is power and truth."
- Basil the Great

Sola Scriptura !

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
- Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture."
- Basil the Great (ca.329–379) On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

Sola Scriptura !

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”
- Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10

Sola Scriptura !

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”
- Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) Summa Theologiae, Question 1, Art. 8

Sola Scriptura!

"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages."
- Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

Sola Scriptura !

Only the scriptures contain the teaching of the apostles and they speak to us through , and that voice is louder and more perfect than any man made tradition !

[Celtic Cross]

I called in no troops. I just pinged everyone whose posted on this thread.

By the way, I know what sola scriptura is.

[Cronos]

Thank you Rn, you are always refreshingly open about your faith

You said: The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

You state that All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source -- Can you find anywhere in scripture which says that ALL should be found in scripture? Didn't Paul write in 2 Thess 2:15 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.?

If you say that only all of the matters needed for salvation, then we agree. The basic truths of Salvation are "God exists; God is a Trinity; Jesus is God the Son; Jesus died for our sins; and we must repent, believe, and be baptized to be saved"

but not "all" -- that is unscriptural :)

2 Pet 1:21 says 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. -- sticking by your own personal interpretation means that you fall into the trap outlined in 2 Pet 3:16 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

[Cronos]

2 Pet 1:21 says 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. -- sticking by your own personal interpretation means that you fall into the trap outlined in 2 Pet 3:16 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And yet we see this personal interpretation changing every day

There are new directions being found, new interpretations everyday.

Each new bunch of Reformatters reformats the old.

1. You have the first generation namely Lutheran sticking close to orthodoxy with the Lutherans holding to the True Presence in the Eucharist, to Baptismal regeneration etc.
2. Generation 2: Then you have the Calvin-Zwingli crowd rejecting these two as well as other aspects of orthodoxy
3. Generation 3: Knox and the Anglican compromise
4. Generation 4: The Unitarians like Michael Servetus who went from being Catholic to Lutheran to Reformed to denying the Trinity.
5. Generation 5: the Baptists who now rejected infant baptism (quite unlike their namesakes the Anabaptists (now called Mennonites)) and said that there was a great Apostasy in the first centuries of Christendom (Gen 1-3 took later centuries as the dates of their "Great Apostasy")
6. Generation 6: the Restorationists at the Great Awakening, like
   
   • The Millerites, to become the Seventh DayAdventists -- with Ellen G White saying that Jesus was the same as the Archangel Michael and that Satan woudl take the sins of the world at the end of time and other beauties. They came up with their own version of the Bible
   • The Unitarians and Universalists -- reborn and reinvigorated by this reformatting, they tossed out the Trinity and eventually they end up as they are today where they believe in nothing
   • Jehovah's Witnesses: they tossed out the Trinity too and came up with their own version of the Bible
   • The Mormons: they took the Trinity and made it three gods. They too came up with their own version of the Bible
7. Generation 7: the Orthodo Presbyterian C, the FourSquare Ahoy! Pentecostalists, the Raelians, the Branch Davidians, the Creflo-Dollar crowd, the Jesse Dupantis (I went to visit Jesus in heaven and comforted Him) etc -- one step further beyond generation 6
8. Generation 8: ... any one of the thousands of new sects formed since 1990

How can you say that there is entropy -- there's a lot of change happening. Next week the North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism is due to split into the Central-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism and the Central-Southern-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism, but this is good driven as there as a dispute in the Congregation on matters of doctrine, Bobama thought that he should be Preach-pasto-Prophet Elder on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and alternate Sundays while Michelle thought that she should be that -- as she had yoga-pilates-kickboxing class on Thursdays.

[Cronos]

remember:

Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture!

• Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone saying that all should be from scripture ALONE. On the contrary we read Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to all traditions -- oral or written
• There is nothing in Scriptura that teaches that Scripture should be held in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
• Sola scriptura also fails that it can't even be derived
• 2 Tim. 3:16–17 says
  

  16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
  17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

  It nowhere says SOLA scriptura. It just says "all scripture" -- not defining scripture, not saying what is outside is wrong, just saying "if it's scripture it be good" In fact it is building words into scripture by claiming that it says sola scriptura so Sola Scriptura contradicts itself!
• Now Sola Scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 3:14 which says
  

  14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

  --> nowhere does it say that this learning was SOLA scriptura, in fact it was mostly ORAL teaching as with the Bereans.
• Also, Sola scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 1:13–14 which says
  

  13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
  14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.;

  --> note, words heard.... not scriptura.
• And sola-scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim 2:2 which says
  

  2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ;

  "Has HEARD" what you have heard, commit and teach to others. No sola scriptura here either

[Cronos]

In contrast We in orthodoxy hold that:

1. The Bible is God-breathed
2. The Bible is inerrant i.e. without any error
3. The Bible is the source of doctrines of the Christian faith and the standard of faith
4. There is nothing "missing" as in sources of fundamental belief of God as opposed to authority in discernemtn in scripture
5. No "other source" bare Apostolic Tradition is anywhere near the level of authority and even A.T. though it is the original "pool" is still subservient to scripture.

We differ with you on the

1. sola i.e. only bit, and on
2. the sole "authority (as it is not a rule book)" and the "all" doctrines.

the authority bit is the easiest to explain why sola scriptura is wrong -- because the Bible is not a rule book especially the NT, there are positions that are clear and positions that if one takes in isolation can lead to wrong, conflicting conclusions (double-predestination as the best example), some more being

1. does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching) note this is fundamental belief
3. Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists) another fundamental belief
4. Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
5. Is Baptism for the remission of sins (Lutheran or Methodism) or not (say Baptist?)
6. Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)? Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
7. Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
8. Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists say it is the sign of the beast)
9. Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
10. Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
11. Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
12. Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
13. Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

Note, all of these are basic, fundamental beliefs, not additional beliefs and by referring to various passages in isolation, different practioners of sola scriptura arrive at different conclusions.

Also, do note that each of these groups uses an "authority" other than scripture to prove it's point to the detriment of others - even down to the individual persons who argue with each other on fundamentals -- each uses an "authority" that is not the Bible alone, that is not sola scriptura to justify their point

The second point, we have argued about this before ad nauseum and reached no conclusion but we can agree to disagree. I will only point out that

1. There is nothing "missing" as in sources of fundamental belief of God as opposed to authority in discernemtn in scripture
2. No "other source" bare Apostolic Tradition is anywhere near the level of authority and even A.T. though it is the original "pool" is still subservient to scripture.

[Cronos]

Also, RN, Gamecock -- if you say you hold to sola scriptura, then why do you note believe God's word in John 6?

And, if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said