A Challenge for those who believe in the Bible Alone

Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1962Missal

Guest
A Challenge for those who believe in the Bible Alone.

Without confusing or blurring the distinction between “God’s Word” and “God’s written Word”, please show from the Bible alone why you believe that all that we know or may know of God’s Divine Revelation is contained within the pages of the Bible.

Note: This challenge is not for those who believe in the primacy of Scripture or those who believe in Scripture as the sole infallible authority. I do not want to confuse this particular issue. This is addressed specifically to those who believe that only those things specifically taught in the Bible are revealed by God and that anything else is a tradition of men.

Justin
 
It appears that no one has yet taken your challenge. :bounce:
 
It appears that no one has yet taken your challenge.
Now, Now! It has only been less than three hours between your two posts. Let’s not be so quick to judge others. I would wait a day or two before making such a statement. Some who may try to respond may be at work or otherwise occupied.

In Christ,
ILO
 
Homer, you might like to answer this. His thread right now is about Praying to Mary Part II.
 
Missal << please show from the Bible alone why you believe that all that we know or may know of God’s Divine Revelation is contained within the pages of the Bible >>

A couple of possible candidates…

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Revelation 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

And my personal favorite…

Matthew 29:1 Yea, I the Lord have spoken: “Do not go beyond what is written, and no one shall add or take away anything contained within the pages of this Holy Bible, which is precisely 66 books, 39 in the Old, and 27 in the New. Thus shall this be the only infallible rule of faith, the only norm for doctrine, and all that we know and may know of God’s Divine Revelation are contained within the pages of this Holy Bible. Amen.”

Sounds pretty clear to me. 😛 From the “Lost Fragment of Matthew’s Gospel Newly Recovered to Prove Sola Scriptura.” :confused:

Phil P
 
Phil:
Good ones! I have always been a fan of the argument for the complete sufficiency of the Book of Revelation (and the related argument for the sufficiency of the Old Testament), but it is even funnier that Calvin himself pointed out that the passage from 1 Cor. refers to people who attempt to judge others’ salvation, and thus “go beyond” the Book of Life. I hadn’t heard that one until recently, and it made the previous “proofs” of sola Scriptura seem even more hilarious than they already were.
 
40.png
ILO:
Now, Now! It has only been less than three hours between your two posts. Let’s not be so quick to judge others. I would wait a day or two before making such a statement. Some who may try to respond may be at work or otherwise occupied.

In Christ,
ILO
Haha! Indeed… I did not see the time… 😃
 
Jprejean << but it is even funnier that Calvin himself pointed out that the passage from 1 Cor. refers to people who attempt to judge others’ salvation, and thus “go beyond” the Book of Life. >>

Yeah that’s one interpretation, Sungenis lays out a couple more in Not By Scripture Alone. 😃

The recent “history” of 1 Corinthians 4:6 as used in debates on sola scriptura (that I recall):

Greg Bahnsen used it with Gerry Matatics on KKLA (c. Feb 1992)
Robert Morey used it with Robert Fastiggi in their debates (also 1992)

No response from Matatics or Fastiggi that I remember. Darn it.

Then it was picked up again in the 1995 book Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (if I remember right), and it is alluded to very briefly as an introduction to a chapter in the Webster/King volumes (see volume 1, page 127) but surprisingly no “exegesis” is given of the text. I find this odd since Sungenis spent about 20 pages on it in Not By Scripture Alone. :cool:

James White has never used 1 Cor 4:6 in his debates or books. I wonder why? Must be because it is a clear explicit text for sola scriptura. :rolleyes:

Of course I forgot to mention 2 Tim 3:15-17 especially “complete” and “thoroughly equipped” but everyone has seen those already. :eek:

Phil P
 
Give 'em a chance, guys. Someone might teach us something.
 
The scripture quotes used to support scripture alone are almost always from the New Testament, actually I have yet to find one in the OT.

1 Cor 4:6 for example, Paul was addressing Corinth. What I have always wondered is when he stated this, he must have been referring to the Old Testament, right? After all, that was the only written word at that time.
 
40.png
Britta:
1 Cor 4:6 for example, Paul was addressing Corinth. What I have always wondered is when he stated this, he must have been referring to the Old Testament, right? After all, that was the only written word at that time.
If you read the Corinthians account, couldn’t a Jew make the argument that us Christians aren’t following what our own Christian Fathers were telling us. In other words, we follow the NT but the Corinthians account seems to indicate that we are not to stray from the OT.

How could one respond to such a charge to defend Christianity?
 
It would seem that to suscribe to 1 Cor in any sense would be “going beyond what is [already] written”. At the vantage of the Sola Scripturist, one can only believe that the word “already” must be intended or implied but for whatever reason omitted, otherwise there is no limit then to the range of “what is written”. Everything and anything then that is written would become the boundaries. Its like saying “Do not eat after midnight”, remember the movie “Gremlins”. Such a statement is fine for entertainment, when it comes to matters of faith it lacks the necessary elements to even consider just as the 1 Cor quote is lacking.

It is truly a rancid argument. To tie it to the Revelation quote would be even more of a heinous abuse, as if John and Paul coordinated the writing of each as a pouring of the foundation for sola scriptura and protestantism.
 
Well, if scripture alone is sufficient, those who believe that should just pass out bibles, without saying anything, since the bible is sufficient. Anything they say is simply adding to scripture. In fact, any thing they say would simply be speaking from their own tradition. So just pass out those bibles in silence.

JimG
 
1962Missal said:
This is addressed specifically to those who believe that only those things specifically taught in the Bible are revealed by God and that anything else is a tradition of men.

Would the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses fall under this category? They go by their Bible only, and refuse to consider any outside source, such as the early Fathers. Here is what I found in their writings:
Insight on the Scriptures pg:1119 Under the heading of Tradition (Christian Traditions subheading)
The “traditions” that are necessary for worship of God that is clean and undefiled were in time included as part of the inspired Scriptures. Hence, the traditions or precepts that were transmitted by Jesus and the apostles and that were vital for life were not left in oral form to be distorted by the passage of time but were accurately recorded in the Bible for the benefit of Christians living at later periods.-Joh 20:30, 31; Re 22:18.
If this qualifies, I can give you several more quotes that states their point of view.
 
40.png
JimG:
Well, if scripture alone is sufficient, those who believe that should just pass out bibles, without saying anything, since the bible is sufficient. Anything they say is simply adding to scripture. In fact, any thing they say would simply be speaking from their own tradition. So just pass out those bibles in silence.

JimG
The Gideons (www.gideons.org/) actually do this.

-C
 
I’ve been going w/my wife to a “Church Of Christ”. When they started their church they did actually give out the whole Bible, (at least theirs) to the government. The government official asked, “Don’t they have catasism sp?” They are proud that they don’t. – In answer to the orginal question about sola scripture. They use a quote, sorry I don’t have the Chapter/Versus, basically, " the Bible is good for teaching". Then the logic is if the Bible is good for teaching, why anything else.
 
40.png
AmandaPS:
Would the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses fall under this category? They go by their Bible only, and refuse to consider any outside source, such as the early Fathers. Here is what I found in their writings:

Insight on the Scriptures pg:1119 Under the heading of Tradition (Christian Traditions subheading)

The “traditions” that are necessary for worship of God that is clean and undefiled were in time included as part of the inspired Scriptures. Hence, the traditions or precepts that were transmitted by Jesus and the apostles and that were vital for life were not left in oral form to be distorted by the passage of time but were accurately recorded in the Bible for the benefit of Christians living at later periods.-Joh 20:30, 31; Re 22:18.

If this qualifies, I can give you several more quotes that states their point of view.
My question would be, where do they get the idea that necessary oral tradition was all inscripturated? How do they determine that oral tradition was strictly temporary? Where do the inspired writers indicate that oral tradition will all pass away and that the full deposit of Divine revelation is to be found only in the Sacred Scriptures?

Also, where does the idea that the Holy Spirit is incapable of maintaining the purity of Sacred Tradition without consigning it to writing come from?

And, once again, how do they prove that all that was left after the last book of the Bible was written was just the “traditions of men” and not part of the Divine revelation?

Please use the Bible alone to answer these questions.

Justin
 
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
If you read the Corinthians account, couldn’t a Jew make the argument that us Christians aren’t following what our own Christian Fathers were telling us. In other words, we follow the NT but the Corinthians account seems to indicate that we are not to stray from the OT.

How could one respond to such a charge to defend Christianity?
I am not sure I understand your question but my point was simply that in 1 Cor 4:6, Paul told the Corinthians “not to go beyond what is written.” At that time, the only written word was the OT. To me, it makes no sense to use this passage to support scripture alone.

The other point I still have a hard time understanding is why would it make sense to refer only to scripture when it was the Church that wrote it. Much like scripture, we have tons of written stories, poems, and literature from great thinkers of the past and just as many trying to understand the meaning behind the words. Thank God we have a Church to help define them. “How can I [understand scripture], unless somone instructs me?” Acts 8:31
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top