[redleghunter]

"First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."

[redleghunter]

PING

[chesley]

The Watch Tower insists that its publications are needed to properly interpret the Bible.

Of course, they’ve been consistently wrong about when Christ will come again.

So, while I would never compare the Caholic Church to the Jehovh’s witnesses in any shape, form, or fashion, I do have to wonder what, in principle, is the difference between the two stances?

[markomalley]

With all respect, and I’m not trying to stir something up (just have never understood this), if Scripture is truly sufficient without any authoritative interpretation), then why the diversity of beliefs with the various groups who all claim to rely upon Scripture alone? I’ve had people tell me that the differences are all peripheral, but I can’t picture that important doctrinal points, like soteriology and eschatology, can possibly be peripheral.

For example, I understand that Southern and most Independent Fundamental Baptists are Calvinist in their Soteriology, but Free Will Baptists (and others?) are Arminian. I’ve read here in FR what some Calvinists think about Arminian beliefs, so I can’t imagine that the two are compatible at all. That’s not a peripheral belief, is it? (One’s salvation shouldn’t be peripheral)

But if the Holy Spirit illuminates each believer so that he can interpret Scripture on his own, how can both of the two views above be guided by the Holy Spirit? (Seems, at best, that one would be and the other wouldn’t)

Is one orthodox and the other a heretic? But says who?

So how does that work?

I’m not trying to stir something up (and I’m sure somebody will be by with his YOPIOS pic), but just want to know how you all can reconcile that belief with the diversity of beliefs that are out there with people who say Scripture, interpreted by the individual, is the sole authority?

Thanks

[imardmd1]

Let me suggest you go back to the original article and extract the undergirding passages that testify to the security of the Bible as the sole authority for both doctrine and practice, and post them here.

There are seven segments to this sewries of which thisa is the third. I am using them in a progressive lesson for my Bible group to provide fellow Christians with firm and unassailable responses to the current attack of these doctrines by Romanists.

[ex-snook]

Do you have to believe in sola Scriptura to be saved?

[hosepipe]

I see........................................

People that worship the Bible.. AND
People that worship the church......

Pretty much makes GOD a doofus.....
Could be a Donkey Rodeo.... with clowns and everything...

[count-your-change]

The question that the debate over sola scripture vs. tradition is whether church tradition ever contradicts or sets in opposition to what the Scriptures say.

If the answer is ‘yes’ than which shall I lean upon? Scripture or Tradition? Further, what can tradition provide to me that that the Scriptures do not?

If the answer is ‘no’ then it must be asked, What purpose does tradition serve? Certainly the reasons for Scriptures existence is stated in many ways, one being that ‘all these things written aforetime were written for our instruction, etc’.

In short, One cannot serve two masters, either tradition will be the final arbiter of faith or the Bible will be.

[narses]

“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?

What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”

He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]

[Jim Noble]

desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself

What, exactly, does scripture say about itself that supports Sola Scriptura?