Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

  • Thread starter Thread starter haparker321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hebrews 10:26 is referring to the people who wanted to go back to Judaism. If you go back to that there is no more sacrifice for sins, because animal sacrifice no longer was sufficient, it was now the One Perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Let me ask you this question. Have you in your life ever sinned willfully after receiving the Knowledge of the Truth. If your answer is yes then you would be condemned to hell according to your interpretation of this passage.
That my friend is wrong. Seems you did not look at the previous verses, which I deliberately left out.

The first part of Hebrews 10 talks about Christ’s sacrifice and this part talks about faith in Christ.

Here it is again:
26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

This refers to those who have received the word of Christ, and then do not renew their lives and go on sinning. The “sacrifice of sins” refers to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. So this says, if you go on sinning deliberately after receiving the word of Christ, His sacrifice does not apply but expect damnation. Hence, there is a way to regain Christ…repentance, going to confession, living according to the will of the Father, doing penance.

Look at v36:

36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

Endurance and perseverance is needed in doing the will of God to receive His promise of Heaven. That, my friend, is our daily struggle to live according to the will of God.

Look at Rom 11:

20That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. **21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. **
 
Hi,

I am just going to make a comment based on how I see things. I agree with some of the posters that not every thing God and Jesus said and did is written down. The Bible as it is written, is the inspired word of God. The Holy Spirit inspired people and they wrote things down. The collection of writing is what we have now as the Bible. God continues to inspire people today. Many christian writings/books/articles etc. are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they must not contradict the Bible. I think the key point is this. We all have a personal walk with Jesus Christ, and in determining what we believe, we need to ask the Holy Spirit through prayer to enlighten us to the truth. That’s why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.
Apparently all protestants have a mind set that when the term “inspired word of God” is mentioned they all think scripture alone. But scripture is only part of the “inspired word of God.” It may be (and is) the only one protestants accept but Jesus told the Apostles that whoever heard them heard Jesus [Luke 10:16] In fact He told them more than that. What He said was:

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”[Luke 10:16]

If I were a protestant I would be concerned about rejecting the orally transmitted inspired word of God.

As far as the Holy Spirit being the Spirit of Truth I will agree with that. The only thing is that the Holy Spirit does not seem to be with protestants. There is no unity in protestantism. Each denomination and there are thousands of them, has its own truths. They claim to be spirit led but obviously if there is a spirit leading them it can not be the Spirit of truth. If it were they would be one.
 
God said All Scripture, Remember Peter said that Paul’s writings were Scripture. We all have to remember this is Gods Word, not mans word. God wrote his Word through human vessels.
JL: Yes indeed ALL Scripture IS inspiried as God said. So why do you ingnor Tradition, which inspired Scriptures tell us to HOLD FAST?

JL: [2Tm3:10 BUT **THOU HAST FULLY KNOWN MY DOCTRINE, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But CONTINUE THOU IN THE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST LEARNED AND HAST BEEN ASSURED OF, KNOWING OF WHOM THOU HAST LEARNED THEM; 15 AND that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in righteousness: 17 THAT the MAN of God MAY BE perfect, thoroughly FURNISHED UNTO all GOOD WORKS.]

Tell me who decides DOCTRINE? Who REPROVES? Who CORRECTS? Who INSTRUCTS in righteousness that the man of God may be FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS. Answer that teaching authority SENT by Christ to TEACH the whole world till the END OF THE WORLD Mt28-16-20. The CHURCH the pillar and ground of the TRUTH, 1Tm3:15. Paul is instructing Timothy to use BOTH oral Tradition LEARNED, from Paul, as well as written Tradition=scripture.

2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, whether BY WORD, OR our EPISTLE. [Paul is instructing Timothy to use BOTH what he has LEARNED (oral Tradition) and the written Tradition (Scripture) which Paul calls OUR GOSPEL.]

1TIM 6: Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

PHILIP 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do

[1 THES 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when **ye received the word of God which ye heard, of us ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.] BOTH divine Oral Tradition and Written Tradition of Scripture are the ONE Word of God

2 THES 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether BY word, OR our epistle.
Jn 14: 26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the THINGS that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

Timothy received the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands, (holy orders, ordination, apostolic succession.) It is thru the Holy Spirit that oral apostolic tradition is kept and discerned, by the church, as opposed to a tradition of men. Scripture tells us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, 1Tm 3:15. The church’s testimony is of no less value than scripture, because the Holy Spirit is the origin of both and ACTIVE IN BOTH, as the council of Jerusalem wrote to the churches, Act15:28 For IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US

[2THESSALONIANS3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **WITHDRAW yourselves FROM EVERY BROTHER THAT WALKETH disorderly, and NOT AFTER THE TRADITION which he RECEIVED OF US.] Evidently Paul thought holding Tradition was very important otherwise why tell people to withdraw from A BROTHER who will not follow them.

other scriptures tell us, 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH AND the spirit of ERROR

Jn 15:20…if THEY have KEPT my saying they WILL KEEP YOURS ALSO Jn 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone but for them which shall believe on me through their word.] Apostolic tradition was delivered face to face from God (Christ) and is discerned by the help of the Holy Spirit. scripture is inspiried by the Holy Spirit. The canon of the bible was discerned, by the church, thru the Holy Spirit along with Apostolic Tradition.

The burden of proof would be on those who claim ALL Tradition is now written in scripture. They must prove scripture ALONE or produce scripture saying ALL Tradition is now in scripture. Otherwise they follow an oral tradition of men made a doctrine of God. Paul says in 2 Thes, our gospel, brethren, whether BY word=oral or epistle=written.
 
The person below commented that the CC gave us the Bible. So are you telling me that Acts should not be in there? that it is not inspired?
I am telling you that, since Acts does not say that it is inspired*, the only way you know that it’s inspired…is…

wait for it…

wait for it…🙂

because* the Catholic Church *discerned for you that it is inspired!

Note: even if a book says *that it’s inspired, of course, that does not make it so. (See the Koran, which also claims that it’s inspired.)

You need an outside authority–that is, something that’s NOT SCRIPTURE–to tell you what’s inspired and what’s not.
 
God said All Scripture, Remember Peter said that Paul’s writings were Scripture.
Right. But what is “Scripture”? Who gets to discern whether the Shepherd of Hermas is Scripture or the letter to Hebrews is?

Do you just know what’s “Scripture” because it’s self-evident?

I will give you a list of verse, some Scripture and some not. Can you tell us which is *theopneustos *and which isn’t (without, of course, using google)?

You can’t.

You (that is, we) need an authority which discerned it to be so!

• All generations shall call me blessed!
• O you who believe! Remember God’s favor to you when there came against you forces, so We sent against them a strong wind and forces which you did not see, and God is Ever- Seeing what you do.
• My breath is offensive to my wife.
• For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
• Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.
• Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror," declares the LORD.
• And seek assistance through patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard thing except for the humble ones.
• I will go and do what the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them
 
Hi PR,
My answer is yes! One caveat: since scripture isn’t explicit, it shouldn’t be doctrine. For example, you and I both believe that purgation takes place. Is there an intermediate state/place (Purgatory) where this happens? Scripture doesn’t say, but it is a reasonable supposition. If you and I share the belief that purgation takes place, why should the belief or not in an intermediate state/place (not clear in scripture) be Church dividing?

Same with the IC, the Assumption, and I would even say invocation.

Jon
Fair enough. But what is doctrine, if not “that which we believe”? 🤷

So I’m not sure how this would look like in “real life”. We both profess to believing in Purgatory, our churches teach it, the pastors proclaim it from the pulpit, but we just don’t call it “doctrine”? Is that what you’re proposing?
 
As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:
  • Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
  • Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
  • Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
  • Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.
I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

    • Proverbs 30:5
    • Hebrews 4:12
    • Matthew 4:4
    • 2 Timothy 3:16
    • Deuteronomy 8:3
    • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
    • Acts 13:44
    Tell me what you think.

    Parker

  1. Here is what I think from a non committed position either way.

    You neglect to realize or can not realize that omitting interpretation variances in your list and why interpretations variances exist makes the questions you ask meaningless.
 
Right. But what is “Scripture”? Who gets to discern whether the Shepherd of Hermas is Scripture or the letter to Hebrews is?
This is such a typically Catholic response in that, once again, it presupposes the idea that in order to know something, some kind of authority has to tell you. But it overlooks the fact that long before the Catholic Church made any kind of official decision to exclude the Shepherd of Hermas or include any canonical book, the canon was already known. The question, then, is how was it possible for Christians to recognize inspired scripture without a definitive Magisterial decree?

Try this on for size. Scripture has been revealed by God to his church–which isn’t the Roman Magisterium–but rather the people of God as a whole. God directly communicated His word to his people without necessarily using any extraordinary measures to do so. So while some books were immediately recognized, others took some time to find their way into the canon. So, for example, in the case of the letter to the Hebrews whose Pauline authorship was widely doubted–it nevertheless was included due largely to the intrinsic authority it possessed. The inclusion of Hebrews into the canon illustrates well the principle that scripture is ultimately recognized by the church due to its intrinsic qualities as the word of God. The Magisterium simply ratifies what the church has already recognized. Thus, once again, we can just know. We don’t have to know that we know before we can say we know.

So why didn’t the Shepherd of Hermas make it into the canon and Hebrews did? Simple: The former isn’t God’s inspired word. The latter is.
 
So why didn’t the Shepherd of Hermas make it into the canon and Hebrews did? Simple: The former isn’t God’s inspired word. The latter is.
Ah, but who was the Authority that declared that to be so? The fact is that it was The Catholic Church, guided by The Holy Spirit.
 
Ah, but who was the Authority that declared that to be so? The fact is that it was The Catholic Church, guided by The Holy Spirit.
The implication was that the followers of Jesus decided the canon.

How did they do this? Who was there? Where is the record of these findings the followers had decided for themselves?
 
Hi PR,
My answer is yes! One caveat: since scripture isn’t explicit, it shouldn’t be doctrine. For example, you and I both believe that purgation takes place. Is there an intermediate state/place (Purgatory) where this happens? Scripture doesn’t say, but it is a reasonable supposition. If you and I share the belief that purgation takes place, why should the belief or not in an intermediate state/place (not clear in scripture) be Church dividing?

Same with the IC, the Assumption, and I would even say invocation.

Jon
JL: Well wouldn’t that rule out the Trinity as a doctrine, wasn’t that very divisive. I don’t recall any division on Purgatory, IC, or Assumption. As a Catholic I believe it was the Holy Spirit who brought about those definitions.
 
Who was Peter, anyway, in the CC that he declares Paul’s writing as Scripture?
Exactly. If one wishes to use Peter as an authority on what scripture is or not,

Oh. My.

That means Peter had authority to do so.
 
This is **such a typically Catholic response **in that, once again, it presupposes the idea that in order to know something, some kind of authority has to tell you
Well, even though you mean it as an insult, Miguel, I take it as a compliment. :tiphat:
But it overlooks the fact that long before the Catholic Church made any kind of official decision to exclude the Shepherd of Hermas or include any canonical book, **the canon was already known. **
LOL!!!

Ohmygosh, Miguel. Do you realize how many times in these past few posts you’ve made reference to your belief in tradition?

“It was already known”, means “Tradition”, right?

Am I right here?

One Protestant made reference to Scripture being made known “by the testimony of the early Christians”. 😃 (Psssst, Protestant Brother, “the testimony of the early Christians” is code for…

Tradition.)

Just sayin’…🤷
 
So, for example, in the case of the letter to the Hebrews whose Pauline authorship was widely doubted–it nevertheless was included due largely to the intrinsic authority it possessed.
This is, frankly, the most absurd statement you’ve made. “Intrinsic authority”?

I could state that Aesop’s Fables have “intrinsic authority” and are therefore Scripture.
The inclusion of Hebrews into the canon illustrates well the principle that scripture is ultimately recognized by the church due to its intrinsic qualities as the word of God. The Magisterium simply ratifies what the church has already recognized.
Yes, Miguel. That’s called…

Tradition.
So why didn’t the Shepherd of Hermas make it into the canon and Hebrews did? Simple: The former isn’t God’s inspired word. The latter is.
This is circular: I know what’s Scripture because it’s inspired. And I know what’s inspired because it’s in Scripture.

We’ve had this discussion before, Miguel. Your “Scripture is self-evident” paradigm is, firstly, not found in Scripture. Secondly, you tell me how it is “self-evident” or “intrinsically authoritative” that “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself” is Scripture.

Is “my breath is offensive to my wife” “intrinsically authoritative”? :hmmm:
 
The doctrine of the Trinity has not been drawn from scripture. To some the dots are there others the dots are not so clear . Others draw a totally different picture from the same sacred text.
Since none of the Apostles thought to write this down clearly ( the doctrine of the Trinity) We have to now wonder which is true, there is no choice but to delcare oneself the sole judge of right interpitation.

Or, the Tritarian doctrine is a non-essential. And yet again the only choice is sole authority.

Seriously people is this the way our God leads us. We are His flock which He himself entrusted unto St. Peter.
 
So, for example, in the case of the letter to the Hebrews whose Pauline authorship was widely doubted–it nevertheless was included due largely to the intrinsic authority it possessed. The inclusion of Hebrews into the canon illustrates well the principle that scripture is ultimately recognized by the church due to its intrinsic qualities as the word of God.
You know, it’s posts like yours here that bring many converts to the Church, day in and day out because of how absurd it is on such an important subject. Especially when this “intrinsic authority” is absent when it comes to naming off all of the OT books. But hey, I guess it only works with the New Testament right cause we all agree with those Books so it’s easier to say such nonsense.

Seriously though, Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox Church all disagree with the amount of Books in the OT. Now what. Should we rely on Miguel to tell us which books have “intrinsic authority” and which do not since the early Church couldn’t get it right first time around? I’m personally thinking that would be a bad idea so I’ll pass.

I’ve seen two different protestants on another forum doubt the Inspiration of Revelations and Paul’s Writings within this past year. But you know what, I can’t even blame them since their Bibles seems to have left them orphans in that area.
 
The doctrine of the Trinity has not been drawn from scripture.
Indeed. Despite Miguel’s protests to the contrary, what he has shown is that he starts with a premise, and then uses Scripture to support it.

That’s how Tradition works.
Originally Posted by Miguel Sastre
Actually, I stated several propositions and then gave a scriptural reference to support those propositions. But since scripture verses can function as premises in an argument, your objection is moot anyway.
Additionally, he has already admitted that he does not believe all doctrines must be found in Scripture–that we can, to quote him, “use our brains” and declare things not found in Scripture. To wit: not found in Scripture–“the only infallible access we have to the oral teachings of the apostles is what the left us in their writing.” And Miguel is fine with this, apparently.
Originally Posted by Miguel Sastre
Chapter and verse that says there has to be a chapter and verse that says we are allowed to **use our brains **to know that the only infallible access we have to the oral teachings of the apostles is what the left us in their writing…
 
=PRmerger;8027132]Fair enough. But what is doctrine, if not “that which we believe”? 🤷
That which we are bound to believe.
So I’m not sure how this would look like in “real life”. We both profess to believing in Purgatory, our churches teach it, the pastors proclaim it from the pulpit, but we just don’t call it “doctrine”? Is that what you’re proposing?
The teaching of the scriptural fact of purgation prior to entry to Heaven? We agree. Doctrine.

The teaching of an intermediate state/place (Purgatory)? A resoanable human expression (without explicit scriptural support) of the fact of purgation? Not doctrine. adiaphora.

Jon
 
Hi JL,
=jlhargus;8027709]JL: Well wouldn’t that rule out the Trinity as a doctrine, wasn’t that very divisive.
Divisiveness isn’t the point. Trinity was determined by a truly ecumenical council, and IS supported by scripture.
I don’t recall any division on Purgatory, IC, or Assumption.
There is. The east doesn’t accept, in at least Catholic terms, any of these, and none were approved by a truly ecumenical council, including both east and west.
As a Catholic I believe it was the Holy Spirit who brought about those definitions.
And how did He do this? I think this is the clear difference between our hermeunetics.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top