Is sola scriptura a 'fundamental'?

Both of these are incorrect statements. Not only can the doctrine of sola scriptural be logically deduced, it is also explicit. Scripture alone has sufficiency for "every good work." You have been listening too much to people with a vested interest in the denial of this doctrine. Those who hold human authority up must deny this doctrine. They do not do so on the basis of Scripture or on the absence of Scripture, but rather on the authority of a man who has placed himself over Scripture.

A presupposition is not used in an argument, per se. It is assumed in the argument. In other words, sola scriptura precedes any argument about fundamentalism. This presupposition cannot be challenged using Scripture. It can be challenged only using the authority of men, who as I said, have a vested interest in its denial.

 

Brian, have you ever read the fundamentals?
Here's an online link. http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/
Go to book two and read the first few chapters!
Gina

 

I didn't use the word alone in the verse. The word in the verse is "every." If it is profitable for every good work, that means we need nothing else. Therefore, it is alone.

I have never seen anyone make any sense at all with their argument. It is simply wrong because it does not line up with Scripture. Scripture never instituted a pope and the bishops as the only interpreters of Scripture. It never gave them any authority over the Bible.

No fundamentalism does not argue for it. Biblical orthodoxy argues for it. It is a presupposition to fundamentalism.

What was spoken to them and written to them is what we have today in the Scriptures. There is no more apostolic authority and that is where the RCC is dead wrong. They pretend that apostolic authority has been passed down. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that now, the only authority mentioned that still exists is the Bible. The church is the guard of the truth. But to do so, the church must be in line with the truth. When a church abandons the truth, they forfeit any authority.

By virtue of the fact that the early church agreed on its canonicity as a whole.

While you are reading, Warfield's The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture is a classic you need to read as well. There are a number of good works that defend this position.

 

In addition to The Fundamentals, I would also recommend the various articles and debates concerning Sola Scriptura found HERE on James White's website.

Andy

 

Brian, I will just jump in to bring in a few ideas.

I do believe in presuppositional apologetics. That is, I presuppose certain things about God before I go anywhere.

For example, for God to be THE God, he must have certain qualities that set him over and above all other "gods". God is immutable. He does not have mood swings. God is all powerful. No one can stay his hand. God is all knowing. No one can compete with knowledge and wisdom. You get the idea.

For us to know this God, he must make himself know to us in some way. All that we do know about him must be from his revelation (general or specific).

We know certain things about his power due to creation and the law upon the heart of man.

Okay, the above is generally accepted among conservative evangelicals.

Now, to the specific, in order for us to know with certainty the correct view of God, he must give specific revelation. General revelation is not enough at this point. The Muslims worship a powerful God. However, he is littered with flaws and weaknesses.

Anyway, when Christ came, he reiterrated the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. What we consider the O.T. was generally accepted as the Scripture and Christ constanty brought people back to the Word and a correct understanding of it. He also felt the freedom to rely on it for all matters that relate to truth and conduct.

At the very least, the O.T. would fall under the "Sola Scriptura" realm.

I am leaving now but will be back later to finish with the N.T. If you respond, please give me enough time to complete my thought.

Thanks.

 

Yes, and let me supplement that point with this:

1. God chose Apostles and/or apostolic men to communicate further revelation (Acts. 10:39-42; Eph. 2:20; John 14:26; John 16:12-15).

2. God authenticated His spokesmen (Acts 14:3; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4)

3. The Apostles authenticated each other’s books as Scripture (2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Peter 3:15-16)

4. God gave gifts to the early church to authenticate revelation (1 Cor. 14:26-37, notice in verse 37 that Paul expected his writings to be acknowledged as Scripture)

5. Apostles directed their writings to be widely disseminated (Gal. 1:1-2; Col. 4:16)


This is just a quick outline, but in short, you have a situation in the early church that ensured that only the right books would be accepted as authenticate revelation from God. (1) The penmen were identified (apostles or those who saw the risen Lord), (2) God authenticated these men with signs and wonders; (3) apostles and prophets identified their works and works of others as true Scripture, and (4) these books were disseminated to believers as Scripture.

 

Let me pull my pastor out from the crossfire on this thread. Pastor Larry lays out pretty much Pastor Innes' position on the matter. I can say from personal knowledge of the man that Brother Innes holds to Sola Scriptura as a presuppositional Truth. Therefore, using his Catagories of Truth in the root post for this discussion is at the least inappropriate and borders IMO on a perversion of them.

 

Brian, Each day we have to make decisions about what we are going to do, say, where we go, what we buy, even what we will read or think about. Each person makes these decisions based on something he or she holds to be true and a plumb line by which to judge him or herself.

What is yours?

Ours is God's Word. The Bible. By reading and knowing the Bible, I have a reliable guide for every part of my life. By knowing my Lord's word, I can discern between the truth and lies in many areas.

If the Bible is not your final and sole authority, what would be? When Paul talked about the word passed on, he was talking about his teachings and those of the other Apostles -- for they went and spoke to the new converts as well as wrote them letters! But we have it all in writing now -- or as much of it as God deems necessary for us.

And so we hold it dear and close and know we can trust it over and above anything any man says or any tradition among men.

The Bereans were commended for checking all teaching against Scripture in Acts 17. Paul told Timothy it was sufficient for character development. In Romans Paul lays out, step by step, Christian doctrine. Jesus lays down, in his last discourse in John, relationships and expectations, and what will happen.

We human beings are so easily deceived -- that is why God has given us three witnesses, and not just one: the Holy Spirit within believers, the Bible (which tells of both the Father and the Son), and creation itself. Of these three, the first and the last can be disputed by other people -- and often are. But the Bible sits there, in black and white print, for thousands of years, saying the same thing. Born again Christians know we can depend on the indwelling Holy Spirit, but non-Christians do not have Him. The Bible, on the other hand, belongs to everyone who wants to read it, ever sure, ever faithful.

It has to be Sola Scriptura. What else is possible?

 

OK Brian, let me ask you this: if there is a disagreement between the church you attend or the church doctrine you profess and the Bible itself, which one is your final authority?

Which one do you trust with your spiritual wellbeing?

 

BrianT, I'll repeat my post from the thread which was closed. Perhaps you can respond to it here as you were prevented earlier as per your PM to me.

Your argument seems to be strong at first because of the way you use it. You're saying that if scripture is the only authority, then only books which claim to be scripture are scripture and those that do not claim to be scripture are not.

But what if we flip the method around and apply your principle to ALL books which claim to be scripture? If I take every book ever written that claims to be a word from God (or the Word of God) and I accept the claim at face value with no other criteria, I have to accept the Book of Mormon, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, not to mention the Koran. This leaves me with a belief system which is so demonstrably wrong and so hopelessly contradictory that it is utterly incoherent.

So, I conclude that there is more than one test and more than one factor that determines whether a book should be in the canon. Your test of "does the book claim to be God's Word?" is a valid question, but it is not the sum total of how the content of the canon is determined.

 

You are missing the point. If Scripture is sufficient for "every good work" then it is all we need. We need nothing else. All other "sufficiency" is based on Scripture because it contains all sufficiency for every good work. There is no authority outside of Scripture that does not rest on Scripture. That is the point.

Yes it does. I don't see how you can say this. Any other authority (such as the church or pastor) derives from Scripture. There is no authority apart from that.

But the RCC is a major violator of this doctrine. To examine the logic isn't the point although it is helpful and clear. Examine the direct statements and teachings of Scripture.

ARGHHHH !!!! Sola Scriptura is prior to any discussion of fundamentalism. It is like saying that the engineering of building a bridge doesn't argue that 2+2=4. It has much more complex formulas. Fundamentalism is a step past this more basic issue. By the time you get to the fundamentals, this problem has already been solved. Were it not true, we would not know what is fundamental to Christianity.

Sola Scriptura is based on Scripture's teaching. KJVOnlyism is not.

Duh!!!! Sola Scriptura cannot be true when "Scripture" does not exist. That seems most obvious. The point is not Scripture but revelation. Revelation is what is authoritative. Today, revelation is found in Scripture and only in Scripture. For the first century church, prior to the close of hte canon, they had direct special revelation. So do we, but ours is in a different form.

What is this doing in this conversation??? It is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with this. Jesus promise to be with the church is real and the Holy Spirit still guides the church. So what?? That has no relevance here.

The church did not decide the canon. It recognized the canon. This is a breakdown in your thinking, I believe. You think the church decided what books were in the canon. They did not. They merely recognized what God had decided would be in teh canon. Canonicity flows from God's revelation, not from the church's decision.

See above. You are not thinking right on this one. You have authority confused. The church recognized. They had no authority to decided.

You may; I don't. I accept only the authority of Scripture. Those books are there because their authority was recognized by the early church. Again, check out some of those sources.