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]

I would suggest you read through the rules of FR, newbie. You are not allowed to make a discussion personal. Argue the issues as much as you want, or leave, but keep it civil

[Religion Moderator]

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

[OneWingedShark]

>The two posts are not linked — “I pray to you to...” is a perfectly correct if antiquated English phrase that came be used in place of “I request you to...”.

Agreed. (that ‘pray’ has an alternate definition of ‘request.’)
But, on pray-to-angel people’s side of things; if this is the case then why do we get condemned for wanting to ‘request’ of God ‘in person?’

Besides which, if God is Omnipresent, of what NEED are angels as messengers *TO* Him? {The argument could be made of the need for messengers *FROM* Him due to man’s repugnant-to-God sin-nature.}

If, on the other hand, praying in this sense is something more than mere ‘request’... then there seems to be some caution warranted. Against the prayer-as-request I present to you the law that got Daniel thrown into the Lion’s den: it would be ABSURD to make a law denying the ability to make a request. “Please pass the salt.” is a request, imagine capital punishment for *THAT*.

[Cronos]

Christ Himself is the final judge - NOT Popes, unbiblical councils or decrees.

I'm sorry, but no one disagrees with you and NO ONE said that.

Matthew 18:19-20 - Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

Matthew 18 points out a good way of praying and when Christ is with us. It does not talk about the wider community of believers that is The Church. Two and three Christians together DO have Christ with them, but that does not answer the question of the wider community.

This excerpt, in contrast talks AGAINST individual believers ("2/3 gathered in my name") and against individual interpretation and prayer. The community of Christ is a community, a Church of believers stretching back 2000 years.

Depending on which denomination i.e. non-Church grouping you belong to, I have no compunction in calling you a part of the community of believers (I do not, IMHO, include Mormons in this Christian community)

[Grunthor]

“You don’t have to “agree” on but have to obey Catholic doctrine. If you don’t want to “agree”, you have a nice choice “leave and become a Protestant” or stay and obey.”

How do you reconcile Catholics like Nancy Pelosi and Rudy Guliani?

One does not have to agree with my churches’ stated doctrines either, but they have to obey them as they are biblical. If one cannot or will not obey those doctrines, then he/she is free to leave.

[Cronos]

Ok, so do you believe in:
1. infant baptism
2. Bishops and other episcopals, ecclesiastics
3. Consubstantian
4. The Trinity

[Cronos]

And yes, in essentials unity, unity in the One Catholic and Apostolic Church (Western, Eastern, Oriental or Assyrian). This seems to fit The Church to a T.

You do realise that in terms of non-essentials we'd put this as married men becoming priests or not. The Catholic Maronite rite allows married men to become priests, as does the Catholic Syro-Malabar, the Orthodox, the Orientals, the CAtholic Syro-Malankara etc.

Bachelor priests are not allowed to get married and married priests are not made bishops in any of these and neither are the monks married. These are non-essentials, but the rites have the same dogma, the same creed.

Does your grouping believe in everything in the Nicene Creed (ok, ok, I know you don't agree to the One Holy and Catholic Church, but let's put that aside and use the term "catholic" with a small "c"). Does it?

[OneWingedShark]

>God is not an either/or but and. He is not either Scripture or Holy Tradition but Scripture AND Holy Tradition.

The problem I have with tradition I’ve explained here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2524569/posts?page=52#52

And it seems that Jesus had a thing against tradition, too:
“Get thee behind me, Satan! thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” [Matthew 16:23]
AND (even more pointedly)
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that. [Mark 7:13]

I can almost see that you will consider the qualification “holy” to indicate that the two are different {ie Holy Tradition and that Tradition of man.}, and you should; you put the qualifier there for a reason.

So, let us understand one another: please define ‘Holy Tradition’ for me. Also, what distinguishes “holy tradition” from tradition.

[conservativegramma]

Even Protestants put up cribs for Christmas. Do they worship those statues? NO. But they treat those images with respect because of what they represent. Do you WORSHIP your Bible when you kneel before it at night to pray? NO. You use it as a tool to talk to God, you use it as a "focuser" to focus on God.

Uh, with all due respect I never BOW DOWN TO any creche or nativity scene I put up at Christmas. Neither do I KNEEL in front of my Bible. To bow down before something IS worship. Like these people are doing:

If you don't think any of the above is worship you're either deluding yourself or you've been completely blinded to truth.

Exodus 20:5, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

[Cronos]

Well, I’m sure OWS just inadvertently slipped. The language used has no relevance to his “corner” or, I pray, to his personal character. Let’s move on..., the thread is interesting.

[Cronos]

well put Leoni. MD —> the way we see The Church is as a community of believers stretching back 2000 years. IT is impossible for an individual to even start to comprehend God. But as a community, especially one stretching back 2000 years with billions of adherents, we can START to begin that journey. When I read Origen or Tertullian, I am reminded of how these wise men (far, FAR wiser and more religious than I) fell when they thought as individuals.

[OneWingedShark]

>OWS: “Baptists aren’t protestants... just to be technical.”
>
>Ok. If I may ask please — are you Baptist to be able to state that?

I was for about a decade; about 5 to 17/18. (Pretty formative years.)
I consider myself to be non-denominational; starting from slightly before I joined the army to about two years in I’d say was probably my “transition-time.” Though I seriously can’t remember a time in my life where I would have disagreed with Augustine’s “unity in essentials & liberty in all else” statement.
(In the Army I was a Chaplain’s Assistant; to a Roman Catholic priest even.)

[Cronos]

Hmmm.... Yes and no. The First Church being of the Apostles was in Jerusalem, yes, but they split up to spread the word around the world (Barnabus going to Persia, Thomas to India etc). The discontinuatio occured in 69AD when Titus Flavius Vespasianus, destroyed Jerusalem. With that break, Christianity changed from being a minor Jewish sect.

[Cronos]

If the prayer is worship of angels, it is anathema, it is to be strongly condemned, yes. On THAT I agree with you.

[Cronos]

It’s incorrect to quote Daniel. After all it was written in a mixture of Hebrew and Persian (Semitic and INdo-Irani languages) and translated through Greek to Latin to English. The nuances will differ.

[Cronos]

How do you reconcile Catholics like Nancy Pelosi and Rudy Guliani?

I don't reconcile them, I condemn them. To me they are CINOs, no better than Carter calling himself a Baptist (or Clinton either). They must obey, or else, well, one priest did deny Teddy's son from receiving communion, right? Wish that all priests had the nerve and conviction to do that.

[OneWingedShark]

Can 6:6-9
The vice-regents and governors conspired together and then went to the king and said, “King Darius, live forever! We’ve convened your vice-regents, governors, and all your leading officials, and have agreed that the king should issue the following decree:
For the next thirty days no one is to pray to any god or mortal except you, O king. Anyone who disobeys will be thrown into the lions’ den.

“Issue this decree, O king, and make it unconditional, as if written in stone **like all the laws of the Medes and the Persians**.”

King Darius signed the decree.

The whole story here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%206&version=MSG

[papertyger]

If you don't think any of the above is worship you're either deluding yourself or you've been completely blinded to truth.

It takes a *special* kind of person to tell another their favorite color isn't what they thought it was.

[conservativegramma]

Matthew 18 points out a good way of praying and when Christ is with us. It does not talk about the wider community of believers that is The Church. Two and three Christians together DO have Christ with them, but that does not answer the question of the wider community.

Agreed that passage primarily points to how to pray together. However, while you maintain that it does NOT answer the question of the wider community, it doesn't refute my contention either. In the New Testament the 'church' has always been a body of believers gathered together, whether it be a home, a church building, or a cave, or a catacomb.

The community of Christ is a community, a Church of believers stretching back 2000 years.

Absolutely in the New Testament sense of a body of believers gathering together in the Name of Christ. That has never ceased. If you are speaking (and I think you are) of the ROMAN Catholic Church politic you err.

THAT organization of which you are a member in its present form has only been extant since about 312 A.D. and has become increasingly pagan.

More here on the paganization of the Church after the Edict of Constantine

In all actuality as a student of Roman History from my college days...your church stretches a lot farther back than 2,000 years. It stretches all the way back to Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. Why? Because your church moved away from the New Testament and became Romanized with the introduction of many pagan Roman religious beliefs (i.e., Pontius Maximus as just one example) repackaged, revamped, and renamed so that it would 'appeal' to pagan Romans being forced into Christianity. So they came into the church by the hundreds, and the thousands, bringing all their paganistic rituals and beliefs with them and the Church accommodated their beliefs and CHANGED. THAT'S your true church.

[Cronos]

‘Tradition’ like ‘ceremony’ can be either beneficial or harmful. The problem with both is that oftentimes the underlying reason/understanding for either the tradition or ceremony are lost and it becomes “something we’ve always done.”

True, but that's not what we're talking about, not about liturgy or wearing a yarmullke. Rather we're talking about the tradition of beliefs of Christ. The Holy Tradition is what the Early Church HAD until the Bible was compiled together in 380 odd AD.

Holy Tradition must stand up to the light of it's child, the scriptures and it DOES. They cannot contradict. We cannot have female priestesses because they're just not there in The Bible for JHWH. Ditto for gaymarriage or contraception orAbortion etc. There can be no NEW revelation or NEW theology, only a clearer understanding of what is / has always been there.

One cannot blame Origen for his speculation if you consider WHEN he lived. One can condemn someone who came later and had the benefit ofhindsight.