Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

1. Is sola scriptura a claim that the Bible makes of itself?

2. You are committing a serious fallacy in your argument:

a. Protestants claim sola scriptura.

b. Protestants are divided.

c. therefore, sola scriptura is invalid.

3. But it seems like you have problem with Baptists as well. It is unfortunate that you were excommunicated because you visited a Methodist church. Sorry about that. I believe that church was wrong for doing that. Just my take.

4. If you don't mind me asking, Where do you go to church now?

 

No, the Bible makes no such claim

You making the claim that Protestantism aren’t divided; please explain how they’re in unity? If unity you mean by that of belief in the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, then yes. But façade of orthodoxy is just a framework that’s built upon a shaky foundation of individualism and subjectivism. Some mainline Protestant denominations have already collapsed in on themselves and can hardly be recognizable as Christian. Heck, even some Methodist and S. Baptist’s I happened across are starting to question the Virgin Birth of Christ!

My problem isn’t with the Baptists; it’s with the division within Protestantism. The Church is a divine human Mystery, the Mystery of the Trinitarian Life…that they may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee…that they may be one even as We are one (John 17:21-22).
As a Baptist I used to door knock…”soul winning”, I happened across a Jehovah’s Witness and we went at it with Scripture, back and forth, we got nowhere in the discussion, b/c essentially we both agreed on our approach to Scripture. Since neither of us ever questioned our underlying common assumption, neither of us saw how mutually flawed our approach to the Scriptures were

Being excommunicated wasn’t a bad thing, after all when I moved from my home town and joined this particular Church, since I was Sothern Baptist, I had to be “voted” into the fold by the deacons…The Church was nothing more than a social club anyway, divided into certain “clicks”.

St. George Orthodox Christian Cathedral here in Wichita, KS.

 

1. Since Scripture makes no such claim of itself as being our sole authority of faith and practice, Where then should we look for additional authorith of faith and practice?

2. I have never claimed that evangelicals aren't divided.

3. A church that questions what is clearly taught in Scripture and is essential to historic, NT Christianity is not a failure on sola scriptura. That's that church's problem.

4. Christ spoke of false prophets, so did Paul and the other NT writers. A defection from NT Christian should come as no surprise to us.

5. My own conclusion on the various denominations is not to attack sola scriptura but rather to properly diagnose the problem, the problem being our human limitations.

 

Pick out the word 'alone' in II Tim 3 from which you quoted above. Problem? Remember that, like the Bereans, Timothy would only have had the OT, so I make the same point to you as I did to Mr Lamb elsewhere*. Finally, place the passage alongside that one from I Tim 3, where The Church is the pillar and foundation of The Truth.

Not really, no: a strict 5-point Calvinist for example believes that his all-powerful God only loves some people and predestines others to eternal punishment; an Arminian OTOH believes that his God loves everybody but is unable to save all of them. These two views of 'God' are so divergent as to amount to two distinct deities.

So, don't tell me that these divisions 'don't matter'; on the contrary, they are utterly pertinent.

*Here:-

 

"Sola Scriptura" is a Bible based doctrinal position seen clearly in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul WERE SO".

(And "yes" I know that some people on this board don't like using scripture found in acts to prove doctrine) - but we can show from scripture that it was proved practice among the saints.

However "IF" as Matt suggests the mere existence of difference of opinion on any one doctrine is sufficient proof that the practice, tradition, doctrine is not valid -- then NO doctrine and NO tradition in the Catholic church is correct!

However the "existence" of disputes and dissenting opinion has NEVER been the "proof" of the failing of that doctrine. In fact if anything it is MORE true that the "popular acceptance" (as in the days of Christ regarding Jewish myths about the messiah) is much MORE the sign of a teaching being in error. Truth - inconvenient truth - has always been unpopular in all ages.

In John 16 God says HE will "Lead us into all truth" but "people differ" in their doctrinal views so "everybody go find the Pope in their denomination to tell thm what to think"???

What kind of solution is THAT??

Why do Catholics think that it SOLVES some problem for the RCC to say that everybody needs to have a pope in their denomination's magesterium telling them what to think??

How is that solving anything??

in Christ,

Bob

 

Here is where you miss the point entirely. There is NO SUCH THING in the NT text as "Scriptrues as we have them today - OT - are INSUFFICIENT".

You simply imagine that as a NT doctrine or teaching and then you make the argument above.

But by CONTRAST - in 2Tim 3 Paul argues that SCRIPTURE (and as you point out - this is primary reference to the OT) IS SUFFICIENT.

You simply read that and say "oh no it was not sufficient Paul because LOOK now we have the NT AS WELL".

But that is NOT a valid argument against what Paul said.

Paul never said "everyone keep limping along with just the OT to guide you until one day the LAST letter of the NT will be written and then FINALLY you will have scripture that is SUFFICIENT to lead to salvation".

Arguments promoting that logic fall flat.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Thank you for proving my point - there is no text in the Scriptures which says that the OT and NT alone are sufficient.

QED. Thanks for that Bob!

 

that is not a quote of me nor a quote of 2Tim 3 -- in fact it is an exact contradiction of 2Tim 3.

Which brings up another point in this dicussion - the steps that one needs to take to distance themselves from the Acts 17:11 and 2Tim 3 teaching on sola scriptura are the same steps that leads to "ignoring the inconvenient details of scripture" ignoring exegetical review as proof for a doctrinal point of view and simply "making claims" instead, claims that are often in the form of bold contradictions to what the scripture in question has just said.

I find that instructive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

In what way? II Tim 3 makes no reference to the NT.

 

I misread your post on this point. I was in error.

You are addressing the point that some here DO argue "The OT is INSUFFICIENT" and are pointing out that this is not supported by 2Tim 3.

I would agree with you on that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Sola Scriptura comes from the fundamental Truth itself.

God is the Word ( Jn 1:1-2)

Bible is the Words of God.

Ignorance about the Words of God means Ignorance about God.

God is the Only Truth.

No human being can teach God.

What is contradictory to Words of God is false.

No human being is Infallible.

Nothing other than Words of God is Infallible.

Nothing other than the Bible is Infallible.

Therefore Only the Scripture is True and can teach the Believers the Infallible Truth.

If any writings like Apocrypha or ECF's writings contradict the Scripture, they are false and wrong, and are heresies.

If any writings like Apocrypha or ECF's writings coincide with the Scripture, then the Believers do not need them as the Scripture is enough.

2 Tim 3
15 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. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Why do we need anything else than the Scripture for Spiritual Perfection?


We can safely conclude that Denial of Sola Scripture means the Confession of NO Salvation.

 

Thanks Bob; I'd say the same about the Bereans in Acts 17

 

Except, as has already been demonstrated, II Tim 3 does not prove Sola Scriptura

Except - It - Does - Not - Work. "Safely", eh?

 

No dissension sown; just based on observing debates between Arminian and Calvinist brethren on this board over the years.

The NT did not exist at the time Paul wrote those words you quote, therefore how on earth could he be referring to anything other than the OT by his word 'Scripture'.

BTW - 'words' are important - I thought we all believed that the Bible was the Word of God?

 

Like I said, I'm merely commenting on what I've observed here. I am quite happy to be disabused of this notion if those who made the numerous earlier statements mutually anathematising each other will retract.

OK

How on earth do you get from "Paul was referring to OT Scriptures [in II Tim 3:15-16]" to "ALL Scripture is sufficient, including the NT"?!

Not for one second. I just can't see how you can say that Paul was saying to Timothy that the New Testament was "sufficient".

A logical fallacy, unfortunately, although I see where you're argument is coming from. I reiterate: at the time of writing of II Tim 3, most of the NT had not been written, therefore it is impossible for Paul to be referring to the rest of the NT; the canon wasn't decided until the end of the 4th century.

 

When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3, Only the OT was taken as Bible.
However, it didn't pre-suppose any exclusion of any further Bible, NT.

OT is the Words of God

NT is the Words of God.

Bible is enough to teach the Believers. to save the unbelievers to the Salvation thru Repentance.