Posted on 02/10/2015 5:33:20 AM PST by Gamecock
No, and yes. The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Those who delight to point this out, however, typically Roman Catholics and the eastern Orthodox, typically miss the point. First, their energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call solo Scriptura. Here the person affirms that all he needs is himself and his Bible. The wisdom of the church in history, the community of believers, are all deemed irrelevant to understanding the things of God. Solo scriptura is reprehensible and ignorant and a-historical.
Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors. It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds. It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay. And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house” (Matthew 9:1-8).
I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions. First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead. Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them? In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra. First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.
But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are. Ask someone Orthodox to show you exactly where you can read their infallible tradition and you will receive slippery ooze. Ask someone Roman Catholic for a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements, and you will receive the same.
Finally, there is this problem. In both instances, Rome and Orthodoxy, you run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress. That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture. Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation? Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.
No, the Bible is God’s Word. It is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Flee anyone who tells you that more is required to understand, or more is required to obey.
If you’d like to learn more, I’d encourage you to get and read my friend Keith Mathison’s outstanding book The Shape of Sola Scriptura.
Revelation was written approximately 96AD. Which book was written after that?
Seem to me that while Catholics acknowledge that the Book of Revelation is not to be tampered with, and that all the the rest of the books of the Bible we can mangle as we please, would be the epitome of stupidity...
I took your statement directly from your post. Your statement as to when it was written was directly related to the topic.
>>And quite controversial.<<
Not between 70AD and 96AD it isn't. Both scripturally and historically Revelation could not have been written in 70AD.
What is it about quoting Scripture that you think implies tradition shouldn’t be in line with Scripture?
Well since you decided to make it personal, I’d say you’re pretty confused about everything except the color of the sky in your own little bubble.
Sorry, the precise timing of the writing of each book is another subject. My point was that it is the last book of the bible because someone other than the original authors decided to put it there. Do I trust his judgement? Well, it’s not relevant except for that one scripture. And then only if one thinks it applies to the entire bible.
But I’m arguing semantics because I’d not accept extra-biblical information as something that needs to be included in it.
“Does this mean we don’t need all the creeds and confessions, all the councils and conventions, to tell us what the Scriptures say? “
I doubt it. Dr. Sproul is a PCA Presbyterian which means he subscribes to the Wesminster Confession of Faith.
http://www.pcaac.org/resources/wcf/
Aha, thank you. So he doesn’t really believe in sola scriptura then.
Sola scriptura + “our additions” = thumbs-up
Sola scriptura + “their additions” = thumbs-down
Yep.
No such thing as sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura + “my personal understanding by the Holy Spirit”
Agreed. And it’s amazing how many basic doctrines are affirmed in Rev. itself, which we’re warned to not add to or take away from anything in that book.
But there’s also these comments by Christ:
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
They should be teaching for doctrines the commandments of God, of course.
Or maybe:
Sola scriptura + the brain God gave me to understand it
After all, if we can’t understand what someone is saying, what’s the point in him saying it? If God said things to us in a way we can’t understand, He sure did a poor job of communicating with us, right?
“God gave ME” or “God gave US”, or Sola Scriptura + “the voice in my head”?
God gave me a brain. He gave you a brain. He gave us brains.
One thing you’ll never hear me say is, “Just take my word for it - this is what the Scriptures teach.”
On the contrary, I’m happy to reason through these things with anyone who’s interested.
Can a Man or Woman raised without contact with any church or a bible be saved?
My answer is that of course they can - they need not even hear the Word from another human.
Agree/Disagree - discuss
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood?
What I meant was last book positionally, not chronologically. However, I still maintain that the Scriptures are a seamless unit and cannot be broken up or “cherry picked” if you will.
Speaks to religious tradition taking precedence over the word of God.
The fact is, there's no such thing as "Sola Scriptura", only Solo Scriptura
So says someone who bows before and obeys the same anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees to whom verse 13 is addressed by naming those Pharisees as having the authority to throw Scripture into the garbage.
So says someone who first blasphemes the Holy Spirit by throwing Scripture in the garbage, then pretends that same Holy Spirit leads them when in fact they rely on Self and Self Alone exactly the same way Eve did after listening to Satan.
The same someone who believes the Bible is just a set of Lego Blocks they can build whatever they like out of and then pretend what they build for their Self and Self Alone is Christianity.
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.