Sola Scriptura

As far as the tradition of the belief, look at the Belgic Confession.

 

Or for more specific Baptist tradition, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

 

Not entirely true. The NT was in the process of being written, but it was already being recognized as Scripture (2 Peter 3). As Tony points out, the canon of Scripture is not dependent on the church for its validity. Scripture is self-attesting. </font>[/QUOTE]Some books in the NT were recognized as Scripture before others. Ironically, 2 Peter was one of the books which was disputed for a long time. Other disputed books in various locales were Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation. Other books were considered in some places to be on par with Scripture but which did not ultimately make it into the canon include: Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews, etc. If Scripture was as "self-attesting" as you claim, why the uncertainty and disagreements? Also, why did most early Christians consider the OT "Deuterocanon" Scripture while most (but not all) Protestants reject them today? Both groups could claim the "witness of the Holy Spirit" within them, but that doesn't solve anything.

Chronologically, the Church did precede the first NT book by about 20 years so it couldn't be dependent on the NT for its existence. Indeed the NT Scriptures, inspired by God, were given by the Apostles of the Church within the Church. Like it or not, we (more or less) owe our canon to decisions the Church made to distinguish the authentic, inspired Apostolic writings from those other extant writings that were non-Apostolic and/or spurious. The Holy Spirit, of course, guided the Church in these decisions, and the recognition of the canon was indeed a gradual process.

 

DT,

While I understand the history and how the church council were used by God to set aside that which is Holy Scripture, of which we both agree. My point is that it is not the church or the council that decided what is or is not Scripture. Scripture is eternal and it comes from God, He and He alone determines whether it is genuinely the Word of God. He certainly can use any of us or those who went before us, but we nor did they decide what is Scripture.

That is my point. I hope it is clear and understandable. God Bless.

Bro Tony

 

Bro Tony,

Good point and I agree. The same Spirit who inspired the Apostles to write the Scriptures also led the Church to recognize those Scriptures.

DT

 

Amen!!! In complete agreement.

God Bless,

Bro Tony

 

The early church received its doctrine directly from the Apostles. Check Acts 2 for the reference.

The question is this: where did the apostles authority go?

If you think it is the church, you would be in error. The church depended upon the apostles.

The authority of the apostles went into their God-inspired writings. This became the instruction for the church.

 

DD,

That is my point in stating that the Word of God is eternal. It is the final authority in all matters. The church understands its place and work in the Kingdom of God because of what the Word says. The Word does not depend upon the Church for its validation. The history of the church demonstrates the folly of this view. But, the Church depends on the Word for its validation.

Bro Tony

 

The Council of Carthage no more 'determined' what was Scripture than the Councils of Nicaea,Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon 'determined' Who Jesus was; both had already been determined by God a few centuries earlier or, if you want to be really spiritual, in eternity. 'Discerned' would perhaps be a better verb to describe what the church did.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yes, that is the question.

Why would one be in error if he thought that? Christ describes the church as having authority in Matthew 18, and Paul called the Church "the ground and pillar of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15. Where does Scripture indicate that this authority would disappear when the Apostles died?

Many churches in various parts of the world survived with incomplete and varying collections of Scripture for many years after the Apostles died. Were these churches any less authoritative? Also over half the apostles did not even write God-inspired Scripture. Did the churches (particularly in the East) they founded lack authority after these Apostles died and before they possessed the full OT and NT?

While the Church was built on the foundation of the Apostles (and prophets) as it is written in Ephesians, the same Holy Spirit which inspired the Apostles did not abandon the Church when the apostles died. The Church ultimately depends on Christ (the chief cornerstone), and not the apostles alone.

I agree that genuine apostolic God-inspired writings carried the authority of the Apostles, but where in Scripture does it say that these writings would be the only place where apostolic authority would reside when the apostles died? On the contrary Paul commanded the Thessalonians to "hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or our epistle" (2 Thess 2:15). What he taught them by word of mouth carried the same weight as his epistles. He did not say that this only applied while he was living. Indeed, he instructed Timothy: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim2:2). Note that Paul didn't say to teach only those things that were written nor did he command to write down the things he heard after Paul died before committing it to others. Paul expected his oral teaching to carry the same force.

It's not a question of Scripture or the Church or the Scripture vs. Tradition. Rather, there existed among early Christians a reciprical relationship among Scripture, Church, and Tradition.

 

2 Tim 3:16-17 plainly state it. Adjust your position about that verse to conform to the context and meaning contained in it. If Scripture equips us for "every" good work, then there is no good work that Scripture does not equip us for. That means that if we want to be fully equipped in doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, all we need is Scripture.

If you will not accept that, then I am not sure there is much use in looking elsewhere.

 

Dear Sister,
This is as close a reference as I can find and as Brother Larry has said, if this cannot suffice, I am hardpressed as to what else to say on this topic. You must be convinced in your own mind that the Bible is the full word of God complete in its record and revelation. No one else can have this or any conviction on your behalf.

There is more that leads up to this from the prohets of the OT, and from the words of Jesus in John chapter 5, '...search the scriptures...'
The best reference, imho, to begin to answer your question starts with the quote given below:

God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

What else would you use?? All truth comes from God and the truth of God in Scripture has been promised the only thing we need. That is not really a matter of interpretation. It seems to me to be the plain meaning of hte text ... I am really confused as to your line of thinking. What else do you think is out there that we as believers need?

 

The honest scholar will tell you that sola scripture is a means to an end. It is not in the Bible, period. Protestants, and those who do not hold to sola scripture, believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible, (and obviously inspired) Word of God. Through the rejection of any visible head to Christ's Church, and the adherence to local, individual churches, without any central leadership, sola scriptura is the only logical path.

During the first centuries of Christianity there was no New Testament and the "scriptures" spoken of in the Bible refer to the Old Testament scriptures. The Apostles would use these scriptures to help others verify that indeed the claims of the Christ were true, as he fulfilled all of the prophecies written about him. Paul consistently fought Jewish leaders about the scriptures when they claimed that one must be circumcised to be saved.

Also interesting to note is that the Apostles themselves did not "advocate" a "sola scriptura" doctrine when it is defined to be the "only" authority. The Apostles had authority over local churches, correcting, teaching, and praising them in their letters and visits.

It may not be wrong to hold to sola scritpura, but one that does, does so based on tradition.

Acts 17:11
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 Cor. 15:3-4
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

2 Tim. 2:15 (KJV)
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

Adam

A scholar who tells you that is no scholar at all. Your claims here smack of the RCC claims that are necessary to maintain its own authority. They are not grounded in Scripture.

Your misunderstanding is huge in this area. Sola Scriptura does not reject a visible head of Christ's church. Every church has a visible head. But that head is under the authority of Scripture, unlike in the RCC where the visible head is over the authority of Scripture, in practical terms.

The NT never set forth any "central leadership" apart from the apostles. To read it into Scripture is a gross error. We, today, exist under apostolic authority has it has been passed down in the NT.

Paul's fight with teh Judaizers was not about Scripture, but about the Law and freedom in Christ.

The truth of the matter is that sola scriptura is the biblical doctrine of church authority. Any attempt to show otherwise requires abandoning the teaching of Scripture. The establishment of a man made head was a necessary institution given the perspective of the RCC. It was not a biblical institution.

In short, the doctrine of sola scriptura is the only biblical approach to Scripture. The catholics have yet to anwer 2 Tim 3:16-17 in a rational way. They have no answer to it.

 

Barring discussion that hasn't even surfaced on this thread yet, this seems to be only opinion.

I really welcome correction, as I myself have no interest in crossing the Tiber. Yet, as I believe the Bible says that scripture is our final authority, allows me to see my Baptist pastor as an authority, capable of interpreting the scriptures, and allowing me to reside under his leadership, so long as he does not start teaching grave error.

Christ's Church extends further than the building at the corner of 3rd and Main. Peter along with the other Apostles did not stay in one spot and induvidually lead one small group of believers. They were a central apostolic leadership for the Church. Each church in turn had leaders who stayed with the groups of believers.

But let me ask, would you say that sola scritpura means "only the Bible" or "the Bible is final". If you definition of sola scripture is "only the Bible"- then where does that put your authority in your own church? Are you given the authority to rightly and accurately divide the Truth? If it is "the Bible is final" then the RCC or other various denominations position is not so absurd. The RCC does not set itself above the scriptures, but is subject to the scriptures. In talking to Catholics they agree "nothing can contradict the sacred scriptures". The claim is simply that the visible head in the Church can accurately interpret the scriptures in matters of faith and morals. Since you seeem focused on the RCC though, I suggest reading "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" By Pope John Paul II.

Precisely! That is what the claim is- Apostolic leadership!

Which the Judaizers believe thier stance is rooted in the scriptures.

Yet the scriptures do not affirm this truth. Instead they give you, as a pastor, authority. Subject to the scriptures, of course, but authority none-the-less. If it is to be "only the scriptures" then your position as pastor is useless in matters of teaching and correcting, which you would claim belongs solely to the Bible.

What is irrational about apostolic leadership?

 

IT has been well defended in orthodox Christianity for years.

[qutoe]I really welcome correction, as I myself have no interest in crossing the Tiber. Yet, as I believe the Bible says that scripture is our final authority, allows me to see my Baptist pastor as an authority, capable of interpreting the scriptures, and allowing me to reside under his leadership, so long as he does not start teaching grave error. [/quote]Pastoral authority stems from biblical authority. The pastor’s authority derives from Scripture.

[quiot]Christ's Church extends further than the building at the corner of 3rd and Main. Peter along with the other Apostles did not stay in one spot and induvidually lead one small group of believers. They were a central apostolic leadership for the Church. Each church in turn had leaders who stayed with the groups of believers. [/quote]Apostolic leadership was central. Today, we do not have apostolic leadership. That passed with the apostles. Today, we have the words of the apostles in the NT. That is our apostolic leadership in every church and in the church.

Pastoral authority is derived from scripture properly taught.

The RCC most certainly does set itself above Scripture. They teach a false doctrine. They contradict Scripture. That is what the reformation was all about. Their claim is far different from the protestant claim. The Scriptures back up the Protestant claim. We cannot rewrite history and theology for the sake of ecumenism.

But it is a false claim. The pope has no apostolic leadership. He is not an apostle. That is a direct contradiction of Scripture. Apostles in Scripture had certain characteristics. The pope has none of those. No pope has ever had apostolic authority.

But what was the problem? Bad understanding and misuse of Scriptures. That is a possibility. But the answer to the problem of bad interpretation is not to institute an office that Scripture doesn’t have.