If ,as Sola scriptura claims.

[RedBert]

bill , a simple yes or no will do:

Are you saying the God’s Word as contained in Scared Scripture is insufficient to lead someone to salvation?

 

[Bill_Pick]

bill , a simple yes or no will do:

Are you saying the God’s Word as contained in Scared Scripture is insufficient to lead someone to salvation?

no

 

[RedBert]

no

thank you:
so we have established Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation.

next : do you agree with Saint Augustine ?

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. –
St. Augustine

 

[Shannon9791]

thank you:
so we have established Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation.

next : do you agree with Saint Augustine ?

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. –
St. Augustine

I don’t know that you have established that Scripture alone is sufficient. You’re saying that all someone has to do is pick up the book and read and they have Salvation? Please correct me if I’m wrong but I feel like that’s what you’re getting at. If just reading a book is all it takes for salvation give me Green Eggs and Ham please. I’m obviously being facetious but that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. You’re also trying to discount different interpretations, but isn’t that the crux of any Scripture debate? You’re basically saying that it doesn’t matter what you think the Bible says, as long as you just believe it in your own way.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I don’t know that you have established that Scripture alone is sufficient. You’re saying that all someone has to do is pick up the book and read and they have Salvation? Please correct me if I’m wrong but I feel like that’s what you’re getting at. If just reading a book is all it takes for salvation give me Green Eggs and Ham please. I’m obviously being facetious but that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. You’re also trying to discount different interpretations, but isn’t that the crux of any Scripture debate? You’re basically saying that it doesn’t matter what you think the Bible says, as long as you just believe it in your own way.

What I did read about him was years ago and I do not believe in SS so look for your debate place elase ,I have 21 reasons to say this.

 

[RedBert]

I don’t know that you have established that Scripture alone is sufficient. You’re saying that all someone has to do is pick up the book and read and they have Salvation? Please correct me if I’m wrong but I feel like that’s what you’re getting at. …

that is not what I am saying; And I thought made that clear

Ex: instructions on how to put a bicycle together:

all of the information is there in the instructions, but I still need to build the bike.

The instructions are complete and sufficient and has all information I need.
Just reading the instructions did NOT get the bike build:

 

[RedBert]

I You’re also trying to discount different interpretations, but isn’t that the crux of any Scripture debate? \QUOTE]

 

[RedBert]

. You’re also trying to discount different interpretations, but isn’t that the crux of any Scripture debate? You’re basically saying that it doesn’t matter what you think the Bible says, as long as you just believe it in your own way.

nope :that is not the crux of the SS debate.
that is the infallible interpreter debate

 

[RedBert]

maybe this will help:

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

**
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church. **

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

 

[RedBert]

you seem to be confusing solo vs sola sciptura:

PROTESTANT REFORMATION: SOLA SCRIPTURA VERSUS SOLO SCRIPTURA

Sola Scriptura simply means “by Scripture alone”. It is the belief that the Scriptures are completely sufficient for everything that we need for faith, life and godliness.

Solo Scriptura is the perversion of the historic Protestant teaching of “sola scriptura.” The reformers taught that the church is an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, but not an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Solo scriptura is the belief that the church is not an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, or is only authoritative when “I agree with it.”

A. Many people today wrongly think that the Bible is the **only **authority for our faith and life. But this is not what the reformers taught. They taught that the Bible is the only infallible rule and authority for faith and life. The reformers never intended for people to reject the authority of the church.
B. Creeds and confessions are one of the ways the church exercises the keys of the kingdom and therefore we are to read the Bible in light of them. The Protestant view of the authority of the church over history is summed up in the Latin phrase, “norma normata” meaning that the church and creeds are a rule (norma) that is ruled (normata) by Scripture.

“Solo scriptura is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a nation with a constitution but no court of law to interpret that constitution. Both can lead to chaos.” (Keith Mathison, “A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura”).

 

[shawn38]

Psalm 19:7The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. 9The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the Lord are sure and altogether righteous.

 

[Spun]

What definition of Sola Scriptura are you working from on this thread? Threads on this topic always seem to involve misrepresenting this topic. You do yourselves absolutely no service by refuting a definition that nobody believes and then patting yourselves on the back for it.

See the thread I started a while back on “What is Sola Scriptura”. There are about 9 different Protestant understandings of the Bible, 7 or 8 of which could be classified as Sola Scriptura. You are taking the Church of Christ understanding of Sola Scriptura (which nobody believes except Church of Christ), applying it to all Protestants, and then knocking it down.

This statement is true in only 2 or so of the more extreme ones and explicitely refuted in 2-3 of the more moderate ones (see Keith Matthison the shape of Sola Scriptura).

No I am not going to get sucked into another debate except to insist that if you want to debate this subject, pick your definition and debate an agreed upon one.

Oh, and the belief tht “all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible” is also in only the 1-2 more extreme definitions also.

I am having some difficulty understanding you here. I did not say that the idea that “all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible” is reflective of a classical understanding of Sola Scriptura.

I completely understand that it is an extreme minority view held by only a very few wooden literalists and fundamentalists. In fact, what I did say is that this is a weak argument against Sola Scriptura proper.

To be more accurate and complete, what I should have said is that any argument against Sola Scriptura which assumed that this was the case for most adherents of the doctrine is bound to fail since it is grounded in a profound misconception.

FTR, I am not seeking to refute any particular variety of SS. I take it as a given that one characteristic common to the majority of understandings is the rejection of an exhaustive external authority whose function is to define and authoritatively interpret the Bible.

So, my point remains: there is no essential epistemological difference between Catholic and Protestant. Both depend upon an external authority or matrix or hermeneutic. Catholics are just more consistent and honest about it. And I believe we have an advantage since we have a central authority about which we can honestly and openly make claims regarding the authoritative nature of her teaching.

 

[Shannon9791]

What I did read about him was years ago and I do not believe in SS so look for your debate place elase ,I have 21 reasons to say this.

I don’t completely get what you’re saying here. I thought we were on the same side in this.

 

[Shannon9791]

that is not what I am saying; And I thought made that clear

Ex: instructions on how to put a bicycle together:

all of the information is there in the instructions, but I still need to build the bike.

The instructions are complete and sufficient and has all information I need.
Just reading the instructions did NOT get the bike build:

This makes more sense, thanks for clearing it up.

 

[schaick]

all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible, then shouldn;t that fundamental believe itself be found in the Bible,Is there a single verse in the Bible that teaches sola scriptura ?

Is there a single Scripture verse saying that Mary was immacualtely conceived? Does our salvation depend on whether we believe that Mary was immaculately conceived?

**Sola Scriptura means that “there is sufficiency of Holy Scripture in all matters necessary to man’s salvation.” ** Opponents of Sola Scriptura say that Sola Scriptura is not in Holy Scripture.

There are in fact many Bible verses that support the concept of Sola Scriptura, but there is a problem with that statement “Sola Scriptura is not in Holy Scripture”] because:

**Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine that must be believed for a person to be saved. **

BUT

**It is that very “Sola Scriptura” [GOD’s Word] that must in fact be believed for our salvation. ** It is our bibliography, the documentation, our source. It is what we must turn to if there is a dispute about GOD’s plan for our salvation.

What or where is the bibliography for some of the many traditions of the Catholic Church that are believed to be necessary for the salvation of man?

We look to GOD’s Holy Word, can we find it written in Scripture, we weigh it out man’s view on our needs for salvation versus GOD’s view.

What following traditions will get you: some irony for you - I don’t have the reference for this. LOL!

An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition.

 

[Newbie2]

re posted to correcting a mis wording

Step 1
Are we in agreement that tradition or (Sacred Tradition) should never contradict Sacred Scripture?
I know we will disagree on whether it there has been contradictions; but can we agree that Tradition should never contradict Scripture?

Step2
Now the following scenario:

An UN-Churched crack addict checks into a hotel and finds a Bible in the drawer and starts reading it.

If he dies the next day from heart damage, was there sufficient information on Salvation in the Bible alone for him to get to heaven?

Step 3
What part of the below quote do you not agree with?

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. –
St. Augustine

that’s how we get to " to the idea that scripture rules over the church"

Tradition cannot contradict Scripture:
The Bible alone is sufficient for salvation
Scripture is the paramount authority

I’d like to see all of what St. Augustine said about the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church. Like with Scripture, you just can’t cut-n-paste and get the full meaning of what he was trying to say.

Who is going to tell you what the Scripture is saying,you can get 4 people with one verse and get 5 diff interpretation. Acts 8:31 read your bible its in there

Yes, that quite naturally follows the claim that “The Bible alone is sufficient for salvation” (see above). If the claim is that all’s in there that you need, then it is worthless if one cannot get it out, no?

I don’t know that you have established that Scripture alone is sufficient. You’re saying that all someone has to do is pick up the book and read and they have Salvation? Please correct me if I’m wrong but I feel like that’s what you’re getting at. If just reading a book is all it takes for salvation give me Green Eggs and Ham please. I’m obviously being facetious but that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. You’re also trying to discount different interpretations, but isn’t that the crux of any Scripture debate? You’re basically saying that it doesn’t matter what you think the Bible says, as long as you just believe it in your own way.

Exactomundo. Infallible interpretation is tied to the belief that it’s all in there.

bill , a simple yes or no will do:

Are you saying the God’s Word as contained in Scared Scripture is insufficient to lead someone to salvation?

Yes.

God’s word is in Sacred Scripture.

 

[RedBert]

Are you saying the God’s Word as contained in Scared Scripture is insufficient to lead someone to salvation?

Yes.

Just double checking: the quesion is if Sacred Scripture is " insufficient "

 

[schaick]

*“Yes, that quite naturally follows the claim that “The Bible alone is sufficient for salvation” (see above). If the claim is that all’s in there that you need, then it is worthless if one cannot get it out, no?” *

Sola Scriptura does not mean you don’t have teachers, ministers, elders etc.

I’m not sure where everyone keeps saying there are many interpretations. There is basically only one interpretation but many applications.

Please - show us the bibligraphy for tradtion not mentioned in the Holy Bible that is needed for salvation.

 

[RedBert]

sorry I kept missing that spelling mistake: no disrespect intended

 

[Newbie2]

sorry I kept missing that spelling mistake: no disrespect intended

Nah, just a good natured ribbing.