B
Bill_Pick
Guest
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 ?
- Status
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
You do know this is the oldest arguments against it, right? And that many Protestant scholars have responded to it?
It’s about as overused as the Protestant use of Matthew 15:3 against Catholics.I think most Protestants would respond to this by quoting 2 Timothy 3:16: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." In fact, it’s often used in defense of sola scriptura.
S
Sulla
Guest
It is an old one, but I don’t know that the 1 Tim. response is even coherent. That passage merely asserts the necessity of scripture, not the sufficiency. “Scripture alone” asserts *more *than merely the sufficiency of scripture, yet 1Tim. doesn’t even get you to sufficiency.
So, why does anybody treat that argument seriously?
So, why does anybody treat that argument seriously?
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Actually it’s 2 Timothy - not a big deal, just don’t want to confuse any one.
Second off, the passage says scripture “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” which are some of the main functions of the Church. Therefore, most Protestant scholars and apologists argue that this states that scripture does what the Magisterium claims to do. That’s their line of thinking.
R
RedBert
Guest
Again; another misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura
S
Spun
Guest
Yes, that’s a pretty weak argument against Sola Scriptura.
The one I keep coming back to is this one:
Protestant Christians commonly take issue with the belief of Catholic and Orthodox Christians that the church, an external authority, has the right and duty to interpret the Bible.
At the same time however, they (Protestants) have a host of external hermeneutical tools and matrices through which they press scripture.
The difference is that with Protestants there seem to be as many matrices as there are major theological schools (e.g. Arminians and Calvinists both approach the Bible honestly but come away with completely different understandings).
But this is the great strength of an authoritative teaching magisterium, when disagreements arise, they can be centrally cleared.
The one I keep coming back to is this one:
Protestant Christians commonly take issue with the belief of Catholic and Orthodox Christians that the church, an external authority, has the right and duty to interpret the Bible.
At the same time however, they (Protestants) have a host of external hermeneutical tools and matrices through which they press scripture.
The difference is that with Protestants there seem to be as many matrices as there are major theological schools (e.g. Arminians and Calvinists both approach the Bible honestly but come away with completely different understandings).
But this is the great strength of an authoritative teaching magisterium, when disagreements arise, they can be centrally cleared.
J
James_Least
Guest
Food for thought: “study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who need not be ashamed,; rightly dividing the Word of Truth”, II Tim.2:15. Also, someone left out: “Throughly furnished to all good works” in II Tim. 3:17. CF: perfect=having the full uniform–including the two-edged sword–The Word of God. i.e. The full uniform of the Lord’s Spiritual Army. “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in lofty places.”
See also: I Tim. 4:1-4.
Peace,
James Least
See also: I Tim. 4:1-4.
Peace,
James Least
R
RedBert
Guest
Bill,
you are 100% right; there is no Biblical references that claim “all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible”
However Sola Sciptura doctrine does NOT claim " that all Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages”
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
From catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
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.
S
Sulla
Guest
Sure, but the scripture doesn’t claim that scripture is sufficient. I see this scripture cited in support of the Protestant claim all the time, and it has always underwhelmed me.Actually it’s 2 Timothy - not a big deal, just don’t want to confuse any one.
Second off, the passage says scripture “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” which are some of the main functions of the Church. Therefore, most Protestant scholars and apologists argue that this states that scripture does what the Magisterium claims to do. That’s their line of thinking.
S
Sulla
Guest
OK, well help me out, then. How would one support the idea that the Bible is the ultimate authority? To give context to my question, we know very well that the understanding of thet Jewish scriptures was greatly influenced by later developments within Judiasm (compare the early understanding of “resurrection” with the way the understanding had developed by the time of Christ). Indeed, we know that groups like the Sadducees rejected resurrection because they found it to be unsupported by scripture and, in some important ways, they were correct.
So, how do we get from here to the idea that scripture rules over the church?
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
R
RedBert
Guest
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.
Can he be saved by reading the Scripture alone, or does he NEED more information from outside or in addition to the Bible?
In other words, 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
S
Shannon9791
Guest
I have to say I don’t like your scenario for a number of reasons. I don’t think anyone, even the most hard core Sola Scripturist would argue that simply reading the words of the Bible would be enough to get someone eternal life. I think if you’re going to debate the merits or pitfalls of position, you’d better come with something a little better than that.
R
RedBert
Guest
agreed,i 'm sorry : i did misword that:
to clarify:
I asked if there was enough information in the Bible for salvation or does he NEED more information from outside or in addition to the Bible?
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Well first of all the Bible does not have everything in the bible,Jn 21;25 and the bible is hard to understand 2Peter 3;16 and we need guidance to interpret the bible Acts 8;31
I also think you need come with somthing more then just what you are saying
R
RedBert
Guest
re posted to correcting a mis wording
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
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
R
RedBert
Guest
so are you saying the God’s Word as contained in Scared Scripture is insufficient to lead someone to salvation?
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
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
R
RedBert
Guest
Yea , i know the playbook too.
How I or anyone else interprets Scripture is a different topic.
I agreed with you
*"Bill,
you are 100% right; there is no Biblical references that claim “all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible”
However Sola Sciptura doctrine does NOT claim " that all Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages”*
do you want to discuss the actual doctrine of SolA (not SOLO) Scriptura, or something else, like needing an Infallible Interpreter?
- Status