Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[amg0364730]

Is Sola Scriptura is Biblical? I need your views on this.

 

[follower of Christ]

No offense, but the mods just had to shut down a thread like this just a couple days ago.
These threads ALWAYS turn into a CAtholic/Protestant battle over church authority and I honestly believe persons starting these threads in most cases know it and are looking for just that.

My question to you is this.
What is your reason for asking if it is biblical ?
WHY do you NEED our view in the matter ?

There are a TON of articles all over the web that you can find just by Googling 'Scripture Alone' that will give you just about every view imaginable...and doing it that way will keep us in THIS forum from ending up offending each other again.

 

[follower of Christ]

Oh, I see.
NOW its making more sense.
you have two posts here including this one;
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35743&p=430115#p430115

 

[mondar]

Oh, I see.
NOW its making more sense.
you have two posts here including this one;
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35743&p=430115#p430115

LOL

 

[turnorburn]

Is Sola Scriptura is Biblical? I need your views on this.

Seems like your asking a pretty heated question for a new guy, next I suppose you'll tell us where the
Apostle Peter was buried? Or why the Bereans reject Sola Scriptura.

Or

A prominent anti-Catholic organization out of Oregon, with Dave Hunt at the helm, publishes a monthly newsletter entitled The Berean Call. The title is taken from Acts 17, where Paul refers to the Bereans in Asia Minor as "noble-minded," and Hunt chose the title to promote his belief in sola scriptura.

turnorburn


:naughty

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

 

[follower of Christ]

Is Sola Scriptura is Biblical? I need your views on this.

Seems like your asking a pretty heated question for a new guy, next I suppose you'll tell us where the
Apostle Peter was buried? Or why the Bereans reject Sola Scriptura.

Or

A prominent anti-Catholic organization out of Oregon, with Dave Hunt at the helm, publishes a monthly newsletter entitled The Berean Call. The title is taken from Acts 17, where Paul refers to the Bereans in Asia Minor as "noble-minded," and Hunt chose the title to promote his belief in sola scriptura.

turnorburn


:naughty

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

Or why does Mary like to show her face on toast from time to time....

 

[follower of Christ]

By the way, folks, its a bit hard to condemn Sola Scriptura based on anything in the NEW testament which did not yet EXIST as a collective whole at the time of the NT writings.

Of course no NT writing is going to say 'the NT is the authoritative source for doctrine' when that source was still in bits and pieces, so it is ABSURD to REQUIRE the NT to say anything of the sort.

We believe in Scripture alone as the FINAL AUTHORITY in matters of doctrine. That doesnt mean that we dont use anything else because frankly, the bible doesnt cover every possibly sin, thought or act that a man can come up with.

For instance, is it 'sin' to marry a 10 year old ?
I believe it would be, but scripture doesnt cover it specifically.
Assuming the laws of the land didnt cover it, I STILL would believe it to be a sin even tho the bible doesnt give an exact age.
Why ?
Because one aspect of marriage is sexual relations and that is WAY too young for a male or female to be having sex.
Secondly a child that age isnt emotionally equipped for that sort of relationship to begin with.

So while I AM Sola Scriptura...ie the GODS words of instruction are the FINAL authority in any given matter, Im not naive enough to think that there arent things that we have to use the spirit of the law and good old godly common sense to discern.

 

[amg0364730]

Well, my question might trigger conflicts, but hey it is always a valid question. Sometimes people do not want to answer it, maybe because they felt too noxious about the real content. Funny, I only asked about reaction not to defend anyone. This what a Protestant or a so called Bible Christian would say.

 

[amg0364730]

Why I need to know?

Well, articles in the internet is not always represent the real thing. I wish to dig it deeper. How did Lutheran52381 says different about his belief. I am not posting my advocacy on Catholic beliefs. The truth is a Protestant theologian might answer my questions quite fairly, but I need to hear about what the Protestants in the grass roots would say the same.

My other topics found in the forum.

My topics posted are always legitimate topic. Does it mean someone should stop asking about Peter? Or even the history of it? In addition to that, if a Christian wrote a gag order in effect, to stop any Biblical topic, and viewed it only as 'Funny' and 'obscure', then what is the beauty of Christianity any way?

People found themselves too sensitive.

If someone asked you, who is Christ, or what do you believe? Are you telling that person to just read the articles written about it in the internet? Or answer it with vindication? If some Bible Christian react too frantically, then why read it?

 

[follower of Christ]

I apologize *IF* you query was sincere, but you have to admit that the circumstances are VERY peculiar.
You had about 2 posts total, one that makes you seem to be catholic and the other running straight to one of the more volatile topics between catholics and protestants...Im smelling troll at that point, kwim ?
But Ill give the benefit of doubt here *IF* you are honestly claiming that the question was sincere and not just trolling for a catholic/protestant war here.

That said, all you had to do is search THIS Forum and you will see enough on the topic that we dont have to go thru it again

 

[Cornelius]

Of course no NT writing is going to say 'the NT is the authoritative source for doctrine' when that source was still in bits and pieces, so it is ABSURD to REQUIRE the NT to say anything of the sort.

Amen, like looking at the flour , salt and yeast and asking; "Is this a bread?"

 

[francisdesales]

No offense, but the mods just had to shut down a thread like this just a couple days ago.
These threads ALWAYS turn into a CAtholic/Protestant battle over church authority and I honestly believe persons starting these threads in most cases know it and are looking for just that.

Actually, knowing the Table of Contents of Scriptures DEPENDS upon an external source of authority, whether you like it or not.

Naturally, this will lead to the ultimate question of authority, which follows when one questions whether the Bible ITSELF is even the Word of God - since it doesn't make that claim for itself...

There are a TON of articles all over the web that you can find just by Googling 'Scripture Alone' that will give you just about every view imaginable...and doing it that way will keep us in THIS forum from ending up offending each other again.

The only one offended by denying Sola Scriptura are those who subscribe to that unbiblical viewpoint. Considering it is the "pillar" of classic Protestantism, it is not a wonder that some deny the obvious.

 

[francisdesales]

Of course no NT writing is going to say 'the NT is the authoritative source for doctrine' when that source was still in bits and pieces, so it is ABSURD to REQUIRE the NT to say anything of the sort.

So it naturally follows that the Bible doesn't claim that the writings of what we now call the "new testament" are found in the bible! You have just proven my point that you so stubbornly refused to contenance...

What you need to consider is that even the individual writings do not make the independent claim. Thus, an external authority made the decision to call "Matthew" part of the Word of God. Matthew never makes that claim. Only the external authority - and the people of the Church who ACCEPT that authority - determine the NT is part of God's Word.

We believe in Scripture alone as the FINAL AUTHORITY in matters of doctrine. That doesnt mean that we dont use anything else because frankly, the bible doesnt cover every possibly sin, thought or act that a man can come up with.

Again, this is not listed in the Scriptures themselves. Nor does the Scriptures even DEFINE what is the Scriptures. Thus, your "rule of thumb" is ridiculous, since this "final authority" never calls itself that, nor is the "final authority" even known "infallibly" by itself!

For instance, is it 'sin' to marry a 10 year old ?
I believe it would be, but scripture doesnt cover it specifically.

Thanks for your glowing endorsement of "Scriptures is the final authority". You have just proven that as false...

So while I AM Sola Scriptura...ie the GODS words of instruction are the FINAL authority in any given matter, Im not naive enough to think that there arent things that we have to use the spirit of the law and good old godly common sense to discern.

WHOSE "COMMON SENSE" shall we use, my friend??? Yours? Mine? See where we are going with your "way"?

 

[francisdesales]

Of course no NT writing is going to say 'the NT is the authoritative source for doctrine' when that source was still in bits and pieces, so it is ABSURD to REQUIRE the NT to say anything of the sort.

Amen, like looking at the flour , salt and yeast and asking; "Is this a bread?"

LOL!!!

Flour, salt, and yeast in their natural states is not bread.

Ya got to mix it and add water and roll it and then bake it...

 

[follower of Christ]

Oh brother, here we go again.

Actually, knowing the Table of Contents of Scriptures DEPENDS upon an external source of authority, whether you like it or not.

Actually it DOESNT...whether YOU like it or not.
Its VERY clear that you are basically saying that we CANNOT trust GOD in the matter...that HE decided what HE wanted in HIS 'bible' for instruction to HIS people.

I dont care how many times YOU think we need to go thru this...the answers will remain the SAME.
WE TRUST GOD THAT HE USED MEN TO GATHER HIS WORD TOGETHER FOR HIS CHURCH.
We DONT need an index and we DONT need the 'church' to tell us what belongs...

Naturally, this will lead to the ultimate question of authority,

Naturally ;)
Which is just one more way in which the CC keeps absolute authority over her drones.

which follows when one questions whether the Bible ITSELF is even the Word of God - since it doesn't make that claim for itself...

We've been thru this already. The bible DOES show itself as BEING the word of God. YOU simply reject that fact.

The only one offended by denying Sola Scriptura are those who subscribe to that unbiblical viewpoint.

The only thing that 'offends' me in the matter is CATHOLICS who turn every thread like this into a church AUTHORITY thread and seem to be oblivious to the fact that WE arent catholic and dont subscribe to her fallacies in the matter.

Considering it is the "pillar" of classic Protestantism, it is not a wonder that some deny the obvious.

Considering catholics arent permitted to think for themselves but must be TOLD what to believe the scriptures say, its no wonder that they dont understand that the bible DOES show that it is Gods 'word'...


Are we done here, fd....or should we both just report this thread now and have it locked ?

 

[follower of Christ]

So it naturally follows that the Bible doesn't claim that the writings of what we now call the "new testament" are found in the bible! You have just proven my point that you so stubbornly refused to contenance...

What Ive proven is that you cant seem to get it thru your head that the WHOLE THING...the ENTIRE scope of our faith...revolves AROUND faith.
YOu CANNOT PROVE that your church wasnt simply writing the letters and putting Pauls name to them as they gathered them together, now CAN you ?
For all that can be PROVEN or not, the whole NT bible could be a hoax....PROVE to me that it isnt....PROVE to us that the letters arent just made up hogwash.

You CANT.
The letters themselves AND the other external 'evidence' could ALL be one huge hoax and WE today cannot PROVE that it wasnt *IF* we look to MAN to prove anything.
We have FAITH in GOD that HE used the CC, just as he used the disobedient Jews, to preserve and protect His word of instruction.

What you need to consider is that even the individual writings do not make the independent claim.

Actually many of them do just that in one way or another.
Such as Paul in 1 cor 7:12 saying VERY clearly that the LORD was giving the instruction, not him.
The letter didnt need to have 'Gods Word' in the title, Im afraid...tho I understand YOUR need to demand as much.

Thus, an external authority made the decision to call "Matthew" part of the Word of God. Matthew never makes that claim. Only the external authority - and the people of the Church who ACCEPT that authority - determine the NT is part of God's Word.

And that external authority was the same as the One from the OT scriptures...GOD Himself.

Again, this is not listed in the Scriptures themselves. Nor does the Scriptures even DEFINE what is the Scriptures. Thus, your "rule of thumb" is ridiculous, since this "final authority" never calls itself that, nor is the "final authority" even known "infallibly" by itself!

Yes, I understand that YOU believe that having FAITH in GOD that He preserved and protected His word is 'ridiculous'..but we also understand that the CC doesnt allow you to have your own ideas about the bible.

Thanks for your glowing endorsement of "Scriptures is the final authority". You have just proven that as false...

Sorry but I gave my reasoning.
The bible doesnt specifically cover every possible sin...if it did it would the the size of the library of Congress.
Where it doesnt speak directly to a situation we use the spirit of the law and common sense instead.
What I find pathetic is that you even used this asinine point for an actual argument.

WHOSE "COMMON SENSE" shall we use, my friend??? Yours? Mine? See where we are going with your "way"?

The same common sense PAUL used in 1 Cor 7 when he said HE was speaking and not the Lord to those believers who were UNequally yoked.
Funny thing about true faith in God is that it leads those who HAVE that faith to be given wisdom to them by GOD Himself.
Those without that type of faith dont have it and never will, most likely.

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it shall be given to him. But let him ask in faith, doubting nothing, for he that doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he shall receive anything from the Lord
(Jas 1:5-6 EMTV)

 

[follower of Christ]

Of course no NT writing is going to say 'the NT is the authoritative source for doctrine' when that source was still in bits and pieces, so it is ABSURD to REQUIRE the NT to say anything of the sort.

Amen, like looking at the flour , salt and yeast and asking; "Is this a bread?"

LOL!!!

Flour, salt, and yeast in their natural states is not bread.

Ya got to mix it and add water and roll it and then bake it...

Gee, I guess since you have a point on that one that we cant trust God to preserve His word....what were we thinking :crazy

 

[follower of Christ]

Of course no NT writing is going to say 'the NT is the authoritative source for doctrine' when that source was still in bits and pieces, so it is ABSURD to REQUIRE the NT to say anything of the sort.

Amen, like looking at the flour , salt and yeast and asking; "Is this a bread?"

More like looking at a large metallic object with four wheels, 4 doors, a windshield, motor and transmission and asking if its a potato...
I guess if someone is told its a potato by their church leaders and they never bother to investigate it for themselves, then maybe its a potato ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

The Authority of Gods word, the Bible
Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that the scriptures as a whole ARE Gods words...His law, His precepts, His instruction to His people and that the final authority in matter of instructions is His word.

Also see this article for more proof about the bible being Gods word:
>> The Law of Moses IS the Law of God.

Supporting Evidence
Firstly we will establish that God HAS given His instruction and HIs precepts to man and it has been recorded for us in the writings we see in the bible.
Here is one such evidence where we can see very clearly that the law of Moses as we see it in writing in our bibles IS the 'word' of God;

And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:
(1Ki 2:3 KJV)

HIS ways, HIS commandments, HIS testimonies AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Law of Moses.
Gods law very much witnesses for itself that it IS His law.
We see VERY clear evidence in the above passage that cannot be denied except by the blind, the illiterate and those with agendas, that what is in the law of Moses IS the very words of the Lord our GOD. There is no escaping this fact for those who are honest.

Paul also says to Timothy:

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, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2Ti 3:15-17 KJV)

This most definitely applies DIRECTLY to the OLD testament as the New Testament had not yet been finished or canonized.
Notice Pauls use of 'ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God"....thus the conclusion is, assuming that Paul knew what the Hebrew scriptures were comprised of, that the entire old testament collection of 'scripture' WAS INSPIRED by God, thus WAS GODS WORD as a collective whole.

And this is where we have to actually TRUST that GOD DID actively guide me to preserve what HE wanted preserved, otherwise individual books may not be inspired and thus Pauls words to Timothy are fairly useless/meaningless as we couldnt even begin to know what actually belonged and what didnt with any certainty.
Not EVERY Old Testament book says that God is speaking directly, but we dont just assume that Paul was LYING when he said that ALL scripture in the Old testament is 'God breathed'. No, we ASSUME that Paul wasnt a liar and even those books that DONT say God is speaking directly ARE STILL His inspired word, thus ARE 'Gods word'.

2.0
The question then is are the letters and historical accounts of the New Testament 'Gods Word' or the words of men ?
Lets look at the New Testament and see what we find...

Paul shows here in no uncertain terms that what he is writing ARE the commandments of the Lord.

What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
(1Co 14:36-37 KJV)

Paul surely presents that what he has written here to the Corinthians IS the commandments of God, thus what he writes IS the 'word' of God, otherwise Paul is a liar.
Paul is also VERY clear to be sure to alert the reader to when HE is speaking his own mind. Notice here that Paul makes plain distinction between the instruction of the Lord and when he is speaking his own thoughts in the matter;

Now to those who have married I command, yet not I, but the Lord: A wife is not to be separated from her husband-- and even if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband--and a husband is not to divorce his wife.
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her.
(1Co 7:10-12 EMTV)

Paul has no need to deceive. When he is not speaking the Lords instruction he apparently isnt afraid to state the fact. So there is no reason to believe on Pauls end that when he speaks words of instruction and guidance, and even just for encouragement, that he IS speaking by inspiration of the Lord unless Paul says otherwise.


3.0
What is the TRUE churches position where Gods word is concerned ?
The church does not DICTATE that the scriptures are Gods word, no she only CONFIRMS and AGREES in the matter by the witness of the Spirit of truth who indwells the church body, through the internal evidences within the scriptures themselves and by the many witnesses throughout history whom also evidence that the bible is Gods word to His people. By 'internal evidences' is meant any EVIDENCE that shows inspiration, not some unreasonable demand that the text state 'this is Gods word' which isnt the only type of evidence for inspiration that exists, yet those with agendas might demand.
Gods does not exist BECAUSE of the church, the church exists BECAUSE of God. Nor does His word exist BECAUSE the church, but the church exists BECAUSE of Him.
Men come and men go. Church doctrines change with the winds. One day a man is called a heretic, the next he is a 'separated brother'.
We cannot trust the passing whims of man. The only tangible thing we can trust for doctrine is Gods word which does not change with each new decade and every new church leader (popes, pastors, etc) and their wavering views.
The church does not decided what is and isnt Gods word, Gods word IS His word regardless. Each word that He has inspired IS His word whether the church accepts those words or not. The church can only decide to believe that the words ARE or arent His. She cannot change the fact that they are.
We either have faith in GOD that He has preserved His word, or we do not.
GOD is the source of our even believing in Him, thus HE is the source that convinced men of inspiration when canon was being brought together, and so we have FAITH in HIM that the bible is HIS word. Not because some man told us to believe, but because His Spirit witnesses with our Spirit and because His word HAS endured for a testimony to His church that He has preserved it.

The Bible teaches that the Spirit will guide us into all truth.

However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will announce to you things to come.
(Joh 16:13 EMTV)

It also teaches us that men would arise from our very ranks, wolves who teach heresies from among ourselves, not sparing the flock...

Act 20:29 For I know this, that savage wolves will come in after my departure, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also from among you yourselves will arise men speaking things having been distorted, in order to draw away the disciples after them.

So we cannot even trust those among us with any absolute certainty, regardless of their claims. Ultimately we can only really trust the word of God that has been protected and preserved by Him, just as He did with the Old Covenant scriptures, we trust that he has done with the new, the internal and historical lending evidence that our faith in Him is very much justified.

What this comes down to is faith, not what we hear from men.
If we CANNOT trust God then we are in the wrong religion.
If we CAN trust God, then we CAN trust Him that He has not let His true assembly be deprived of the instruction He gave for her in the beginning of this age by letters and historical accounts and even prophecy as represented in our bibles.

If God did not preserve His word and the church has been left without instruction, then that means God has failed.
Since God did not fail then we can be assured that the writings by Paul and others that HE WANTED preserved for His people have BEEN preserved for them.
We trust GOD, not man, that His word HAS been kept for us even though some have tried to destroy it and others have tried to shroud it in ancient tongues to keep us from knowing it.
Gods word has prevailed because GOD has protected it, just as He has protected His church.

 

[Guest]

We have FAITH in GOD that HE used the CC, just as he used the disobedient Jews, to preserve and protect His word of instruction.

The Bible alone cannot serve as its own authoritative source for the claim of being an authoritative source. This is called circular reasoning. If the Bible is to be considered God's word and to carry God's authority within the Church, then it is necessary for there to be some source external to the Bible through which we can know the Bible is God's word. This was the argument which francisdesales was pushing within the other thread. It's logical and reasonable. And you actually agree with it.

I know you agree with it because you are appealing to a source external to the Bible. You are appealing to God. You are arguing that through faith in God, God will provide people with the knowledge needed to know that the Bible is God's word. Hence, it seems really strange that you continue to argue against francisdesales on this point.

Perhaps you have misunderstood him? Perhaps you are convinced he is attempting to push Catholic propaganda? Perhaps you are merely debating for the sake of debate? Perhaps your pride is preventing you from recognizing and/or admitting that you agree? Perhaps you believe some quasi-Christian idea about God and the Bible being one in the same entity? I do not know your reason for persisting with this debate when it's clear you do not really disagree with francisdesales.