Posted on 02/22/2010 8:00:31 AM PST by Pyro7480
Arguments from silence, where Scripture is concerned, are useless.
The Bible never mentions helium, therefore it must not exist!
The Bible never mentions nuclear energy, therefore it must not exist!
The Bible never mentions the automobile, therefore it must not exist!
The Bible never mentions ....
Need I go on?
Before critiquing Sola Scriptura, folks ought to learn what it MEANS!
“Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
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. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.”
Full debate between James White and Patrick Madrid (both sides) available here:
http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
So it is with the traditions of Mary's perpetual virginity and assumption into heaven, purgatory, immortality of the soul, etc. that are so at odds with God's word but defended by only by rejecting that same word.
do you believe it?
Is that a common danger?
I didn’t say it was easy. But with prayer and study the Truth in the Bible is accessible to anyone.
Excuse me, 46 was meant to be a reply to you.
Excellent article. We always need to stand up for the truth.
Nope.
Duh! The article has the quotes from Scripture mentioned!
Which is not the same as saying that Scripture contains all necessary knowledge; i.e., Sola Scriptura. But to say so, makes the Holy Spirit extraneous ... which is not the case.
Tradition does not have that authority in my opinion.
"Tradition," properly understood, represents the work of the Holy Spirit in the context of an extended community ("extended" meaning over both time and space). It should be differentiated from custom or habit.
At the very least, Tradition helps us to live properly together as the Body of Christ, both in terms of how we understand God and, and how we live with each other. There is a great deal of authority in that sort of communal structure.
This isn’t talking about tradition. This is talking about Scripture.
Read the article please.
You don't read good.. I said others are making the HS a doofus..
The Bible never mentions your need to go on...so, no, you needn't go on.
;O)
>>> I read all the scriptures you posted and not a single one of them said anything about “Sola Scriptura.”
The word “Trinity” never appears in the bible either.
If it can be successfully established that the bible as we know it is incomplete, then it must also be concluded that it is in error, and could just as reasonably be said to contain writings which are NOT scripture.
For that matter, one could say that unless God had complete control over the consolidation of the various books we know today as the bible, then it is fallible.
The real question therefore becomes... “Do you believe that God inspired the compilation of the 66 books we know today as the bible?”
Is it possible that God inspired writing that He desired to be included? I would have to conclude yes... but for whatever reason, God rejected the writing in the compilation phase due to the writer’s interjection of personal thought or error. Nevertheless, be rest assured that God did not leave anything out that was important for His will.
So... to say that the bible is incomplete to me is congruent to suggesting that God did not inspire it’s compilation, in which case none of it can be trusted.
No, I don’t. I do believe that the office of bishop in Rome was very important early in the church’s history in overcoming heresy. I do not, however, find anywhere in history or the Scriptures an appeal to the universal and exclusive jurisdiction of any one bishop.
How do you know if you've gotten it right?
Certainly you read commentaries, etc, written by those who have studied, correct?
if you were to find a Biblical scholar, whose commentary seemed eminently sensible to you, who claimed nothing that struck you as inauthentic or in error, would that make you more confident in your own interpretations, or less?
So Terabitten, you are attempting to provide evidence that we should believe sola scriptura by using “argumentum ex silentio” logic.
If “sola scriptura” is true, then it must come from the Bible. It has to be in the Bible because if it isn’t then it has to be a self-contradictory doctrine.
Sorry Terabitten, you can’t have it both ways.
A fine Christian church, the Ethiopian Orthodox, has a Bible with more than 66 books, not including some of the Apocrypha. Are you saying their Bible is uninspired and of the Devil?
You wrote:
“You don’t read good..”
Apparently I read better than you write.
“I said others are making the HS a doofus..”
I know what you said. And you’re still the only one calling Him that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.