Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[cfrancis]

I don’t think converted sinners who are born from above stuggle with the cannon of Scripture. The Bible is a closed book for those without the Spirit. It is an open book of progessive understanding and knowledge for those who are born from above. How do you think God the Holy Spirit grows us in knowledge and transformation but through the Scriptures (written Word of God).

Look, I understand that honestly answering the questions posed to you makes you uncomfortable. Perhaps that discomfort is the Spirit movnig within you.
All you state above is true; with the Spirit, the words of Scripture are no problem for the person.
Again, such is not the issue; this is:

If Scripture truly is the final authority, then to settle any issues on the canon of Scripture - a very Christian belief - one need only look to Scripture for the canon. Yet Scripture is silent on the issue - there is no inspired table of contents.

Can you provide Scriptural evidence for the canon you accept and believe?

 

[AlanF]

Okay, please share the different councils in church history that defined the cannon of Scripture. It is my understanding that church councils, creeds, and confessions are driven be heresy and false teaching in the church. If that’s true, there is long period of time when Christians received the Word of God as the Word of God before the first council on the issue of the cannon of Scripture. In addition to the Protestant and Roman Catholic cannons, you now have greater problems in regards to defining tradition with Sacred Tradition. This is an on-going issue for Roman Catholic truth. In regards to receivng the Bible as my truth, God did not place me in this world in the 1st century, but in the 21st century with the universal testimony of the Universal Church believing the Bible is God-breathed. God gave us the Scriptures. For all Christians, we believe the Bible is the Word of God through the work of the Holy Spirit as our conviction which is based on faith alone. You nor I can prove to others that the Bible is the Word of God; we accept that truth by Faith Alone through the conviction the Spirit give us as a testimony to other men.

That itself is not biblical, here you have shown that one needs an extrabiblical source to identify which scriptures are inspired. You believe the Bible is the Bible because everyone else does (tradition), we beleive the Bible is the Bible because the Church has the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit in discerning the tuth and hence has spoken infallibly on the canon.
Would you, if you had never read the Bible before, and had all the scriptures of the 1st century like the Church did, be able to discern which ones are inspired?

The only way to prove that wrong is to answer the question that the others have been asking you for about two pages now:

Can you provide Scriptural evidence for the canon you accept and believe?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree 100% with the verses you quoted saying it is useful, but it never claims to be the ONLY useful thing.

tGette is correct. Thread exhausted.

 

[justasking4]

Hello Friends,

“It is written”…

(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.
2 Timothy 3:15-17

(18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
(19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
(20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
(21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:18-21

Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

You have the freedom of conscience.
“I receive not honor from men.” John 5:41

If, I repeat if you support freedom of conscience and that of choice, allow the following link to remain, and people to look for themselves. If Catholicism is truth then allow it to be compared.

amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Media-RtR-Video.html

“Here I stand I can do no other.” Martin Luther

If you do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the following statement from New York Catechism is simple to swallow.

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of the Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the found of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism

God help us when a man places himself above the " Holy One of Israel," Jesus Christ alone is salvation found in.

Righteousness by faith

Galatians 5:5-6
(5) For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
(6) For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10

[Emphasis of bold added, to make clear Jesus Christ alone is salvation in and no other]

amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Media-RtR-Video.html

Search for yourselves, Jesus Christ wants so much to have a personal relationship with you.

What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

 

[SimonArizona]

Christians can you answer me?

What is to be the Pillar and Foundation of the truth for any Christian?

 

[justasking4]

Christians can you answer me?

What is to be the Pillar and Foundation of the truth for any Christian?

Before we can answer this we must understand what Paul meant by it. What has the Catholic church said?

 

[Lilyflower]

Apart from a attack on Catholicism, this has no substance to support the principle of Sola Scriptura.

The New Testament references to Scripture by Timothy, John and Peter were NOT part of Scripture at the time that they were the words of the authors.

They were thus not part of Scripture, but part of Catholic Tradition which were eventually included as written Scripture in the Books of the New Testament.

The New Testament is in reality part of Catholic Tradition.

It is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And it is the New Testament that the protestants accept as inspired.

It is also not necessarily a prescription for life, rather, early Bishops writing to the early Church’s.

Blessings and peace

 

[Theodora]

The question Simon Arizona posted is a very good one.

What is to be the Pillar and Foundation of the truth for any Christian?

---

I noticed everyone else has been discussing this thread except for the OP.

 

[Reformed]

The question Simon Arizona posted is a very good one.

What is to be the Pillar and Foundation of the truth for any Christian?

---

I noticed everyone else has been discussing this thread except for the OP.

The church is made up of all sinners who have been united to Christ. It is mutually exclusive from the Roman Catholic denomination. Peter would deny being the first pope, and is a Christian only. The biblical Mary is quite different too.

 

[guanophore]

Before we can answer this we must understand what Paul meant by it. What has the Catholic church said?

Why would that be relevant, since you reject whatever she says anyhow?

The church is made up of all sinners who have been united to Christ. It is mutually exclusive from the Roman Catholic denomination. Peter would deny being the first pope, and is a Christian only. The biblical Mary is quite different too.

This is a deficient concept of Church. All the first Christians were Catholic for a thousand years.

But what has this got to do with the topic?

 

[tGette]

Sola Scriptura is absolutely Biblical if, by that, we mean that the concept of Sola Scriptura is based purely on using the Bible.

If that is what is meant by this statement…then I agree!

I think this thread is dead!

We have proven that Sola Scriptura is NOT Biblical. Actually…the Scriptures have proven for us that Sola Scriptura is NOT Biblical.

Next thread please!!!

 

[reccanboy]

You stated:
I merely pointed out that when it comes to your very Christian belief in the canon of Scripture, your belief in that is not rooted in Scripture.
If Scripture truly is the final authority, then to settle any issues on the canon of Scripture - a very Christian belief - one need only look to Scripture for the canon. Yet Scripture is silent on the issue - there is no inspired table of contents.

There doesn’t need to be an inspired table of contents. Imagine using that argument before the incarnation of Christ; the Jewish teaching authority was fallible, yet a canon was recognized by the people.

 

[tGette]

There doesn’t need to be an inspired table of contents. Imagine using that argument before the incarnation of Christ; the Jewish teaching authority was fallible, yet a canon was recognized by the people.

That is because they had oral tradition to verify these stories.

The Old Testament stories were handed down by oral tradition for the majority of salvation history.

We, in this modern day, have gotten away from filling our heads with vast amounts of information in this way.

It was because all of these stories were part of their tradition that they new them to be true.

 

[reccanboy]

That is because they had oral tradition to verify these stories.

The Old Testament stories were handed down by oral tradition for the majority of salvation history.

We, in this modern day, have gotten away from filling our heads with vast amounts of information in this way.

It was because all of these stories were part of their tradition that they new them to be true.

I have no problem with oral tradition, but the point being that the canon was recognized by a FALLIBLE authority (Being the Jews), that same Jews who taught the Korban rule and the unclean/clean laws which Christ refuted).

There is no need for an inspired table of contents, just the FALLIBLE Church, yet led by God to recognize scripture.

 

[tGette]

I have no problem with oral tradition, but the point being that the canon was recognized by a FALLIBLE authority (Being the Jews), that same Jews who taught the Korban rule and the unclean/clean laws which Christ refuted).

There is no need for an inspired table of contents, just the FALLIBLE Church, yet led by God to recognize scripture.

Right…which God does with His Church today!

The Church is full of sinful people, and often times corrupt people. But based on Jesus’ new promise to us that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church…we have the assurance that, beyond Scripture, we can recognize true teaching which is given within in the Church. Which is similar to how the Jews had oral tradition coinciding with what became the oral tradition written into Scripture.

What I am really curious about, and this might be best for another thread:
If the Protestant version of the Old Testament exists solely based on what the Jews eventually canonized for their Scripture, then why is the Protestant Old Testament in the same order. More precisely…why do they not simply use the Tanakh as the Old Testament?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have no problem with oral tradition, but the point being that the canon was recognized by a FALLIBLE authority (Being the Jews), that same Jews who taught the Korban rule and the unclean/clean laws which Christ refuted).

There is no need for an inspired table of contents, just the FALLIBLE Church, yet led by God to recognize scripture.

The first point on this to think about is that there is a lot of debate right now over whether or not the Jews even had a canon established at all prior to the Council of Jamnia around 90 AD. So there wasn’t necessarily even any fallible authority recognizing the canon. Just individuals believed books were sacred, and there was a general feeling about certain books (especially the Pentateuch, which probably were universally seen among the Jews as divinely inspired), but it’s far from certain that it was codified at all before the Christian era. The 1st century debate between Christians and Jews over the rightful place of the Septuagint in the canon appears to be one sign of this. If the Christians came from an older Jewish tradition where the Deuterocanonicals was ruled out of the canon, they wouldn’t have been so accepting of its Deuterocanonical texts. The fact that the debate existed indicates that there was a lot of uncertainty as to the exact nature of the canon.

Uncertainty over the canon allowed a lot of heresies to take root. For instance, the Gnostics used books such as the “Gospel of Judas,” and there were a lot of others of uncertain canonicity. The Early Church Fathers rejected them, but the kinds of canon lists the Early Church Fathers presented all had differences from one another. Not even one of those lists had exactly the same set of books as the current Protestant Old Testament. And disagreement over books allowed some heresies to skim followers off the Church.

So you should be able to see why they considered it to be a real problem. That’s why they had a series of councils (Hippo, Carthage and Rome) around the beginning of the 5th century and end of the 4th that established the canon – and ruled out of it a lot of dangerous writings.

The disintegration of the Church’s authority in Protestantism, and the absence of a canon determined by an infallible authority, is what has allowed for groups such as Mormonism to change the Bible canon. They didn’t have any authority beyond human tradition (the Protestant tradition never claimed to be infallible) that they were rejecting. That’s also why you see Protestant disagreements over the Deuterocanonicals, some (like the Anglicans) accepting them and others not . . . and the Ethiopian church I believe rejects the Book of Revelation (Not that I’m saying it’s Protestant. But its absence from the Catholic councils selecting the canon shows its logical result- some difference) . . . There are certainly disagreements within Protestantism over what books should belong. The primary reason there isn’t more variance within Protestantism over the canon is that there’s still so much carry-over Catholicism influencing their thought. As people get further from Catholicism, I think their feelings about which books belong in the canon will loosen further.

 

[guanophore]

There doesn’t need to be an inspired table of contents. Imagine using that argument before the incarnation of Christ; the Jewish teaching authority was fallible, yet a canon was recognized by the people.

Such a statement reveals a vast lack of knowledge about how the canon was formed. There were over 400 works floating about, used in the church, or claiming to be inspired. The church had to distinguish between these. If the table of contents is not inspired, then you have nothing. You might as well read readers digest.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4278083]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Before we can answer this we must understand what Paul meant by it. What has the Catholic church said?

guanophore
Why would that be relevant, since you reject whatever she says anyhow?

Not so. Its important to understand what the original author meant before we can really discuss it otherwise we may just talk past each other… :aok:

 

[guanophore]

Not so. Its important to understand what the original author meant before we can really discuss it otherwise we may just talk past each other… :aok:

I agree, and as you have been repeatedly told, these are expressed in the Teachings of the Church, which you have rejected.

 

[dawid]

Scripture reveals that not all the was written is all that Christ did in His incarnation. God is infinite and the Biblie is finite in contents. God gaves us the Scritpures, His written Word to base our Faith on in this life. We will know more when we see Him face to face, and not before. To go beyond what is written leads to false gospels and false Christ.

That comment is both invalid and unbiblical!