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).

[OneWingedShark]

>>re:Persistent appeals to the paper unity of Rome means nothing, and only avoids what the real issue is, which is not simply unity but unity with God and each other based upon truth.
>
>That’s three or four times I’ve asked you the same question and you have not posted ONE revealed truth that YOPIOS agree on.

Here’s a revealed truth: you’re not interested in truth, you’re interested in “being right,” this is evidenced by your constant and consistent appeal to the papacy rather than through rational reasoning AS WELL AS your constant aggression against people using scripture to back up their points... which one would logically expect on a thread whose title is “Is Sola Scriptura biblical?”.

How many have you chased off this thread for holding contrary beliefs instead of reasoning, pleading and/or appealing to morality? (logos, pathos, ethos) I counted three; and I’m sure there’s more contemplating it.

Your treatment of conservativegramma is especially revealing; as is the reply I received of you here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2524569/posts?page=111#111

>I posted just 7 revealed truths of the Catholic Church which are CRUCIAL to everyday life.

Which 7 were those? Since they were ‘revealed’ to the Catholic church that indicates that they have little to no basis in the Scriptures.

Are you referring to the SIX in post 229?

>Stop all this beating around the bush, just admit it, YOPIOS have no agreement on any of the seven, and have NOT ONE revealed truth that answers any of life’s questions.

How are we to give a reason when you will not hear and you have already condemned us? How can we give a defense when you reject the right of the defense to call favorable witnesses?

You are like the lazy man in Proverbs 26:16 who is wiser in his own opinion than seven who render careful answers; your refusal to engage in any real debate, which takes work and reasoning, indicates this.

[presently no screen name]

WOW! What blasphemy from the pope himself. How can I save those pictures? Need to send them to a few restless Catholics - this will put them into the ‘saved’ column in no time.

Your posts shine the light on darkness, good and faithful servant! THANK YOU!

[papertyger]

First, simply repeating the textbook history of the origin of the LXX itself does nothing to address what I've said.

Why is what you've said compelling enough to doubt the textbook? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which you haven't provided. I see no reason to distinguish between you and some conspiracy theorist attempting to prove the KJV is God's chosen english translation.

Sorry Cronos, but simply repeating the Sorellian myths of Catholicism no longer cuts it.

I don't see why not. Your assertions rest on academic assuptions and conclusions so esoteric as to be, for all practical purposes, worthless.

[daniel1212]

A worthy observation. The RC apologist’s tendency is to misunderstand SS (that “alone” means rejection of church authority, tradition, history, etc. as offering any viable interpretive information), while attempting to use the Scripture to negate the position that all must be subject to it, but that Rome is the final authority. By so appealing to Scripture the RC apologist is effectively allowing that doctrinal certainty can be had through the Berean method, (Acts 17:11) while his oft-resorted to claims of Roman supremacy reject that premise, and in fact rest upon her own infallible claim to be (conditionally) infallible, based upon her infallible interpretation.

[papertyger]

The problem is, this is hopelessly unscriptural. Nowhere does scripture say that the dead in heaven intercede with the Father for us.

So? How is this a problem without assuming sola scriptura, an assumption yet to be validated?

Here Peter quite clearly calls baptism a "figure," meaning it is intended to serve as a symbol, and nothing else.

It says no such thing. Besides, a strict reading shows even if it is a "symbol," it still saves, now.

A symbol of what? Of the death and resurrection of Christ.

I guess we should ignore all that ark business from verse 20, then?

Note the identificational terms involved - this is not speaking of salvation by baptism, it is speaking of the choice on the part of the one being baptised to testify of their complete yielding of self to Christ, identifying with Him in death to self, and being raised to newness of life, just as He bore our sins to His death, and rose to new life having obtained the victory over sin and death for us.

Sorry, I'm having trouble figuring out how you believe Romans 6:3-5 helps you deny baptismal regenertion in any way. It sure doesn't say anything like your "explanation."

[papertyger]

So……Scripture comes from TRADITION eh? So then Tradition TRUMPS Scripture??? Uh huh…….so then the Pope TRUMPS God??? And you call me a heretic.

With that progression of "logic" I think someone needs to call you a cab!

Christ taught differently: Luke 10:26 – “And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" You’re going to have to interpret if you’re commanded to READ IT. Christ never said, ‘How does the MAGISTERIUM READ IT to you’, He said, How does IT [Scripture] read to you. I’ll stick with Christ’s commands, thanks.

Pray tell, where did Christ command you to commandeer narratives and treat them as commands?

[papertyger]

Poppycock. It proves they were sent letters (i.e. Scripture). It doesn’t specify when but it DOES specify they were SENT!

Sorry, there ain't no i.e.s in scripture, and it doesn't identify WHICH letters are being referred to...and YOU talk about eisigetical gymnastics?

[papertyger]

LOL dart......I appreciate the complement, but I suspect I’m too young. ;) Have 3 grandkids but the oldest is only 3.

That makes you what? About 35?

[bkaycee]

Irenaeus’ against the Gnostics.

Irenaeus leaves his readers in no doubt as to his view of Scripture. The Scriptures embody the fullness of truth handed down to the Church from the apostles, and being inspired, are fully authoritative for proof for the doctrinal teaching of the Church. He states:

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.

Irenaeus believed that true apostolic tradition cannot be purely oral in nature—it must be verified from the writings of the apostles. This was the point of contention between Irenaeus and his Gnostic opponents. The Gnostics claimed to possess an oral tradition from the apostles which was supplemental to Scripture and immune to the Scriptural proofs demanded by Irenaeus. According to Irenaeus, in order for tradition to be demonstrated as truly apostolic it must be documented from Scripture.

He further buttresses his case by stating that Scripture is the medium by which the true apostolic teaching has been handed down to the Church. He acknowledged that the apostles initially preached orally, but goes on to say that their teaching was then committed to writing, and it is that writing—the New Testament—that is the medium by which the apostolic tradition or teaching is handed down to the Church. It is those writings which have become the ground and pillar of the faith of the Church:

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 the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html

[OneWingedShark]

>Pray tell, where did Christ command you to commandeer narratives and treat them as commands?

Pray tell, why would Jesus ask someone to do something unscriptural?

[papertyger]

You are like the lazy man in Proverbs 26:16 who is wiser in his own opinion than seven who render careful answers; your refusal to engage in any real debate, which takes work and reasoning, indicates this.

One question: how do you know who wins your "debates?"

[papertyger]

Funny, I don’t recall the book of Irenaeus in the Scriptures

[papertyger]

Pray tell, why would Jesus ask someone to do something unscriptural?

Your question justifies making this narrative a command, how?

You have six, full, thirty gallon waterpots lying around, too?

[Alamo-Girl]

Pray tell, where did Christ command you to commandeer narratives and treat them as commands?

For one, parables:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. – Matthew 13:14-16

Moreover, the words of God are not like the words of men. They are spirit and life. The words of men are neither spirit nor life. The words of God quicken, they are alive in us.

Thereby we know the difference.

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

And again,

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. – John 5:24

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

We will not follow strangers.

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5

Only His own can hear Him. The ones in this passage could physically hear Jesus, but they could not spiritually hear Him. They did not have "ears to hear."

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

And "ears to hear" is a gift of God.

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. - Deuteronomy 29:2-5

In sum, man's interpretation of Scripture is vanity - the power is in the words of God.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matt 4:4

Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11

I am that bread of life. – John 6:48

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

But they can only be spiritually discerned, e.g. from parables.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:14

God's Name is I AM.

[OneWingedShark]

>One question: how do you know who wins your “debates?”

Sometimes one doesn’t. Sometimes they do.
That is sometimes there is no clear winner; this happens more often when neither side addressed the premises of the other side’s argument.

Sometimes the ‘winner’ is self-evident.

[bkaycee]

Funny, I don’t recall the book of Irenaeus in the Scriptures

What is your point?

[papertyger]

That’s an awful lot of verbage to claim “I just know.”

It’s also wrong...in that there is nowhere in the scriptures that authorizes turning a narrative into a command....or have you sold all of your possessions?

[papertyger]

So how would you know if you lost a debate?

[bkaycee]

Funny, I don’t recall the book of Irenaeus in the Scriptures

Possibly, you missed my point, that Irenaeus believed Sola scriptura.

You seem to prefer to fight against the straw man SOLO Scriptura

Let's reiterate what Sola Scriptura is.

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.

The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace.

It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

[papertyger]

That Irenaeus’ writings are not part of infallable scripture.