Is sola scriptura a 'fundamental'?

Hi again, Brian,

Actually no church established the canon. All any of the councils could do was confirm it. The OT was already confirmed by the Jewish people, and who to know better than they? The New Testament was pretty fully accepted as we know it about a hundred years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. What the councils did, basically, was eliminate books which were spurious. And, in the long run, it really is God who was/is in charge of what goes into His Word, don't you think?

At any rate, I do think I understand a lot of what you are saying, and probably we are not so far apart. We agree that the Bible is the highest authority, and that is probably the most important point of all.

As far as personal interpretations go, I have found with my own reading of it that it explains itself. One part of the Bible almost always sheds light on what is meant in another part. That is part of the real miracle of this Book, written by so many authors over so many years.

However, as far as Christ sending the Holy Spirit to His church, I do not find that in the Bible. Could you show me where you see it? What I see is the promise to the individuals who are His that they will not be left as orphans, but be indwelt by His Holy Spirit. This is far more important, I think, than any claim by any church, for churches are run by men, but the born again Christian is run by God Himself (Philippians 1:6; Romans 8:28-30). Understanding this, then, we can go from that point to the understanding that the Holy Spirit will lead all of us who are His, individually, to the full truth, bit by bit. Thus we are to depend entirely on Him and not on any physical church. We may worship in this or that church, Baptist or otherwise, but the attention is to be paid to Christ -- else one can get very wet in a storm!

In terms of the fulfillment of future prophesies, I have noticed something funny: even the prophets of the OT who prophesied about Christ could not tell exactly what was meant! Why on earth should we be arguing about future prophesies when we are in the same position? We will understand it when it happens, and recognize it as fulfilled prophesy. I sort of like the way someone put it (I don't remember who): Hope for the rapture and keep looking up spiritually, but prepare and brace for the Tribulation! Here, again, we must look to Christ and not our own 'understanding' of things which have not happened yet. As I read it, I think the book of Revelation was written so that those who saw these events unfold would not be consumed with fear -- if they recognize, "Hey, this is exactly what was prophesied!", then they will be able to hang on to hope and faith, no matter who is right about the Rapture or whatever. Does that make sense?

So trying to interpret the future is sort of silly, I think. How can we know until it happens, and then we look at the prophesies and say, "Oh! THAT'S what He meant!"

Yes, you are right about everyone using Scripture to 'defend' their views. And that is exactly the wrong approach. We should use Scripture to change our views! God is right, and we are not. That is why, I know, James told us to ask for wisdom. And we are told God is not sparing with it. I have seen so much of people hitting each other over the head with Bible on this Board that I truly cringe when I think of what other readers must be thinking. A little humility is in order in many cases, I think!

But I do know that we will all find, someday, that we have all been wrong in certain things, and that only Christ is always right all the time. He is ultimately the Person who decided which books were to be included in the Canon of Scripture. It is not unusual for Him to work through men, but He can also work quite nicely in spite of them, too! He certainly does not NEED us!

So, getting back to the thread, I think the whole point of Sola Scriptura is that we have an infallible guide from God and that we should recognize it as our final authority. As for me, I know I am not only a sheep, but a Califiornia blonde sheep to boot, and that if I don't keep my eyes on the Savior, I am really in a mucky mess! So for me, His Word is really paramount, and I am deeply grateful for it.

 

Helen, I think it would be better to say that the early church "recognized" the canon instead of "confirm". Not really a big deal, it is just the way I see it.

BrianT, allow me to continue.

I pointed out what Christ thought of the O.T. He of course brought further revelation to his hearers. That of course would be authoritative. Then, in John 14, he promised that the Holy Spirit would guide "them" into all truth. I don't know how many times I see and hear people say that has to do with the Christian life and discerning truth, etc. It actually has nothing to do with it. He was promising/prophesying that those sitting there would be led into all truth.

This truth that the disciples were led into is all that was needed and necessary for the early formation of the Church. Some of this stuff was penned into Scripture.

Now, the early church obeyed the Apostle's doctrine. They were the sole authority on matters of truth and conduct. They were not always correct and were not sinless. Thus, God moved them to pen the Scripture (which is perfect and inerrant). As the Scriptures were written, the Apostles needed to spend less and less time going over the same things as people would gain access to the written word.

2 Peter 1:19
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

What could be more sure than the experience of seeing the transfiguration? The Scriptures.

What is the only thing worthy of comparison to the actual words of God? The Scriptures, his revelation to us.

Okay, I know you know this stuff. It serves as the foundation though.

1. If an apostle wrote something, there is good reason to believe it is Scripture.

2. If it quotes and alludes to other portions of Scripture, there is good reason to believe it is Scripture.

3. If its doctrines are in line with what was already known to be Scripture, there is good reason to believe it is Scripture.

There are others, but these are things taken from the Scripture. These are scriptural reasons to judge what is and isn't Scripture.

Sola Scriptura as I understand it does not deny that authority exists in other forms. The difference is that the other forms GET their authority from the Scripture.

For example: the elders in a church have a measure of authority. We are not to go to them for all matters of truth and conduct as though they are the final authority. We would go to the Scriptures.

 

Gunther, I agree with your correction of my choice of words as well as what you wrote in the rest of your post.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate Pastor larry's responce to this foolishness. Dear friends I am deeply saddened by the fact that this forum has been hijacked to promote catholic doctrine. I never thought I would see it happen. I will hold my peace for a short time as I am stunned by the fact that one who claims to be a christian refuses to accept and honor the authority that has been placed upon me by the owner of this web board. I feel confident that the error of this doctrine will be proven and I apologize for allowing it's promotion on this forum. I pray that we will all join together to protect this forum as a rare place where we who trust completely in the authority of scripture can post without having to combat those who refuse to accept and honor the authority of that same scripture. As Pastor Larry has well said only those who wish to promote their own authority over scripture will practice the doubt and denial of it's authority.
God Bless
Murph

 

It does not mean that the Bible is the only place where truth can be found.
It does not mean that the Bible is equally clear to all people.
It does not mean that the instruction of Church is not helpful and authoritative.
It does mean however, that the Scriptures are our only ultimate and infallible authority for faith and practice. We are not talking here however about "solo Scriptura" which might be what we would call those who want themselves to be the only teachers (the "just-gimme-me-and-my-Bible" group) and to repudiate all others. We are however saying that the Scriptures are our final authority and that they are infallible. All other authorities, even though valid, are subordinate to the Scriptures and are fallible.