Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[tGette]

Extremely valid question. However, I think our question, or observation, would be that it never says the church should have more power over it either. And it doesn’t say that the pope is the end-all when it comes to speaking on faith and morals. That is the perception we tend to have as protestants, that more emphasis is on the pope and his words and not the words of Christ. I don’t think any honest protestant would negate the fact that the words of the church are useful. If they did they would be wrong. We just don’t think the church is quite on the same plane as the Bible, and we don’t think the words of the pope are just as important either. That’s a knock or a put down on anyone. It just tends to be our perceptions and beliefs.

And your perception that our faith is just a simple “I believe” and then move on is not on target at all. We believe that out of our profession of faith we do have, and we do walk in a relationship with Christ. To think or say otherwise is not fair. True, some protestants are protestants in name only, but the same can be said of catholics as well. However, that is not a lumping of all prots and caths into one big 'ole category. It’s just the truth.

You’re right…I was over-generalizing…I apologize!

Though…Scripture does tell us that Jesus gave the Apostles authority, especially Peter (first Pope) to “bind and loose”. I do not see how you could interpret that any other way than to mean men were given authority to run Jesus’ Church.

The Bible (New Testament)…we all need to remember…is not a play-by-play account of the life of Jesus and the Apostle. It is a compilation of writings about the life of Christ and the teachings of early disciples to help affirm the truth of Christ’s existence.

The Bible is not a book like the Catechism where every nuance of the faith is spelled out. The Bible does not explicitly state everything because before the Bible was compiled the early followers were not relying solely on Scripture to lead their faith lives. They were also relying on the early leaders of the Church who were given authority from Jesus to “preach the Gospel to all nations”. Preach…not read this book to all nations.

Scripture is useful, we all agree. Scripture is not the only useful thing.

 

[Reformed]

Yes, Scripture was Scripture from the time ink met writing surface.
Yet, none of the Gospels self-identify as Scripture; in fact, only John’s Revelation self-identifies as inspired by God.
In truth, we must turn to an extra-Biblical source to determine which writings, from all the contenders, are the ones God inspired.

The problem with that view is that there are many difference extra-biblical sources to turn to. Should I turn to the Roman Catholic source to determine the canon of Scripture? Should I turn to the historicl Protestant source to determine the canon of Scripture. Should I turn to the Orthodox Church to determine the canon of Scripture? Should I turn to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to determine the canon of Scirpture?

It’s interesting that three of the four sources stated above claim to be “The One True Church”. Only the Protetstant position is a solid circular position. The Word of God is God breathed because the Bible claims to be the Word of God. Have you ever notice that the Bible never debates the existence of God? It is a presupposition that God is. The same can be said as Scripture being the Word of God. The Holy Bible is God-breathed because it is, without a religious organzaiton putting their stamp of approval to be the Word of God. It is God the Holy Spirit that opens our hearts and mind to receive the Word of God as the Word of God according the Scripture revelation. If you need a religious organization to tell you the Bible is the Word of God, then maybe God the Holy Spirit has not revealed it to you personally?

 

[cfrancis]

The problem with that view is that there are many difference extra-biblical sources to turn to. Should I turn to the Roman Catholic source to determine that canon of Scripture? Should I turn to the historicl Protestant source to determine the canon of Scripture. Should I turn to the Orthodox Church to determine the canon of Scripture? Should I turn to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to determine the canon of Scirpture?

It’s interesting that three of the four sources stated above claim to be “The One True Church”. Only the Protetstant position is a solid circular position. The Word of God is God breathed because the Bible claims to be the Word of God.

So upon what extra-Biblical source do you rely for your belief in the canon of Scripture?

 

[tGette]

Please help me understand Marian dogma and non-dogma in regards to Sacred Tradition. The truth of Mary is just that…it is truth before the Magestrium declares a doctrine truth as being truth or not truth. Since I don’t think Mary is considered co-reedemer as Sacred Tradition, does that mean the silence of Rome declaring it as dogma mean that Mary is not a co-reedemer with Christ? What I’m trying to say, it seems the Magestrium is always declaring new Sacred Tradition. Truth is truth regardless of what the magestrium declares as truth or not. The Epistles in the New Testament and the four gospel accounts were God-breathed revelation before the Catholic Church defined them to be part of the canon, correct?

I wanted to comment on the part I made bold:

The Magisterium only declares a Tradition a dogma of faith when people are contending the belief.

Just as the Magisterium made the Trinity a dogma when people were questioning the nature of God. They had to explicitly state that God is a Trinity because there was too much heresy going on stating otherwise.

An example, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. It was not defined until 1950, but there are paintings and references to it hundreds of years before that.

The Church does not just pull things out of the sky to make new beliefs.

 

[tGette]

The problem with that view is that there are many difference extra-biblical sources to turn to. Should I turn to the Roman Catholic source to determine the canon of Scripture? Should I turn to the historicl Protestant source to determine the canon of Scripture. Should I turn to the Orthodox Church to determine the canon of Scripture? Should I turn to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to determine the canon of Scirpture?

It’s interesting that three of the four sources stated above claim to be “The One True Church”. Only the Protetstant position is a solid circular position. The Word of God is God breathed because the Bible claims to be the Word of God. Have you ever notice that the Bible never debates the existence of God? It is a presupposition that God is. The same can be said as Scripture being the Word of God. The Holy Bible is God-breathed because it is, without a religious organzaiton putting their stamp of approval to be the Word of God. It is God the Holy Spirit that opens our hearts and mind to receive the Word of God as the Word of God according the Scripture revelation. If you need a religious organization to tell you the Bible is the Word of God, then maybe God the Holy Spirit has not revealed it to you personally?

“The Word of God” is referred to as so many things in Scripture.

I could give many, but the main one. In the beginning of the Gospel according to John we are told that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh? Is the Bible a person? Is the Bible God?

 

[Reformed]

So upon what extra-Biblical source do you rely for your belief in the canon of Scripture?

No extra-biblical source is needed for the child of God. God the Holy Spirit reveals this truth that the Bible is the Word of God. We share 66 books my friend., and we both agree that those 66 books are God-breathed. How did you come to that conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God? Here is the transfer from oral to the written. We did not live with Paul and the Apostles. Therefore, we receive the written form of revelation from God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

 

[Reformed]

I wanted to comment on the part I made bold:

The Magisterium only declares a Tradition a dogma of faith when people are contending the belief.

Just as the Magisterium made the Trinity a dogma when people were questioning the nature of God. They had to explicitly state that God is a Trinity because there was too much heresy going on stating otherwise.

An example, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. It was not defined until 1950, but there are paintings and references to it hundreds of years before that.

The Church does not just pull things out of the sky to make new beliefs.

Okay, is Mary the co-redeemer or not based on what?

 

[Reformed]

“The Word of God” is referred to as so many things in Scripture.

I could give many, but the main one. In the beginning of the Gospel according to John we are told that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh? Is the Bible a person? Is the Bible God?

The written Word points to the Living Word (Christ). If you go beyond the written Word, extra-biblical sources tend to point to false Christs (another Jesus).

 

[cfrancis]

No extra-biblical source is needed for the child of God. God the Holy Spirit reveals this truth that the Bible is the Word of God. We share 66 books my friend., and we both agree that those 66 books are God-breathed. How did you come to that conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God? Here is the transfer from oral to the written. We did not live with Paul and the Apostles. Therefore, we receive the written form of revelation from God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

I suppose it’s difficult for you to move beyond your a priori mindset; you have a bound Bible before you, and that is the Bible.
But there is no Biblical evidence in the Bible that the books in the Bible are the Books that are to be in the Bible.
If Paul or Matthew or Luke had said, “And the Lord God commanded me to write…” we’d have something.
So go back 1800-1900 years.
Place all the contenders for the canon on a rug in front of you.
How does one pick out the Scripture writings from the non-inspired writings?
Now, according to you, each believer would then have to go through the same exercise.
And, according to you, those who chose the same writings as you would be the ones led by the Holy Spirit; those who chose differently, you would say weren’t true Children of God.

How did you come to that conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God?

Because the Church told me so. I did not have access to the originals, nor to all the contenders.

 

[tGette]

Okay, is Mary the co-redeemer or not based on what?

I do not know, the Church has not spoken.
(I know what just went through your head when you read that!)

 

[tGette]

The written Word points to the Living Word (Christ). If you go beyond the written Word, extra-biblical sources tend to point to false Christs (another Jesus).

You are right, it does point to the Living Word! It does not claim to tell us everything about the Living Word.
So before there was a New Testament…what pointed to Jesus?

The Living Word speaks through the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised! I will send the Comforter Jesus said!

For Sola Scriptura to be true, it needed to be held by the Apostles. And…it was not! And if you make a reference to their reliance on the Old Testament then that still does not count because it does not include the New Testament.

 

[adstrinity]

Welcome!

You haven’t posted this on a Jewish site, have you? Bunch of NT quotes saying, ‘look at the OT for proof of Jesus!’ and an entire religion out there doesn’t see it.

Please, reason that.

 

[dawid]

Please help me understand Marian dogma and non-dogma in regards to Sacred Tradition. The truth of Mary is just that…it is truth before the Magestrium declares a doctrine truth as being truth or not truth. Since I don’t think Mary is considered co-reedemer as Sacred Tradition, does that mean the silence of Rome declaring it as dogma mean that Mary is not a co-reedemer with Christ? What I’m trying to say, it seems the Magestrium is always declaring new Sacred Tradition. Truth is truth regardless of what the magestrium declares as truth or not. The Epistles in the New Testament and the four gospel accounts were God-breathed revelation before the Catholic Church defined them to be part of the canon, correct?

Mary’s as Co-Redeemer is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. Prof Scott Hahn’s book “Hail Holy Queen” explains this concept on page 125 of his book. His argument is that “We are God’s co-workers” (1 Cor 3:9).

There were many epistles and gospels! The bishops of the Magisterium had tthe task of selecting those that conveyed His Gospel.

They had to discern the truth and the appropriate from the material at hand.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, their selection is what we now hold as the New Testament.

If you’re interested, I recommend Lee Strobel’s book “The case for the Real Jesus” fascinating reading (see his website as well). The author, initially an athiest, presents a series of rigorous assessments of the Bible. From the evidence of his research, the integrity of the Bible is stunning.

 

[josephdavid]

Please look at John 20:30; 21:25. Probably posted before but it should at least end the argument.

 

[reteeks21]

You’re right…I was over-generalizing…I apologize!

Though…Scripture does tell us that Jesus gave the Apostles authority, especially Peter (first Pope) to “bind and loose”. I do not see how you could interpret that any other way than to mean men were given authority to run Jesus’ Church.

The Bible (New Testament)…we all need to remember…is not a play-by-play account of the life of Jesus and the Apostle. It is a compilation of writings about the life of Christ and the teachings of early disciples to help affirm the truth of Christ’s existence.

The Bible is not a book like the Catechism where every nuance of the faith is spelled out. The Bible does not explicitly state everything because before the Bible was compiled the early followers were not relying solely on Scripture to lead their faith lives. They were also relying on the early leaders of the Church who were given authority from Jesus to “preach the Gospel to all nations”. Preach…not read this book to all nations.

Scripture is useful, we all agree. Scripture is not the only useful thing.

Sorry if it came across like I was offended by your comments. I was more or less trying to make it clear that I was not lumping everyone together. Sorry if I made it seem that I thought you were doing it.

Now, I think you and I agree a lot here, but not 100%, which I think is ok. Here is how I think of the “preach the gospel” verse you quoted. True, men were given the task of taking the gospel to the word, but it was the words of Christ not Peter, John, Matthew etc that they were to take. John does say that if all that Jesus had done was written down there wouldn’t be enough paper to hold it, but I find it compelling that John obviously included what he deemed to be the most important aspects of Jesus’s life and teachings.

If the first years of the church were void of the Bible as we know it (I am not denying that, for the record), then it would stand to reason that the church WAS led by men. But these men who were the ones who carried the words of Christ. After that, in Paul’s era, it WAS necessary to write the teachings down so people could read them and pass them along. At that point the leaders were being martyed, and/or they were spread out at that point, so it stands to reason that we would need the words written down for us. I go back to the fact that they were speaking Christ’s words, not operating on their own orders or their inspirations.

I know that Timothy says that the church is the pillar and foundation, but to me that is clearly a reference to the church as it holds to the previously marked out teachings. I’m sure that we don’t agree 100% on this, and I’m cool with that. I am just glad to be able to hold a conversation here that doesn’t turn into “mine is better than yours”, or “you’re a heretic”, or you are hell-bound dear catholic!" Thanks for talking with me. I am getting a lot out of this.

 

[Reformed]

Mary’s as Co-Redeemer is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. Prof Scott Hahn’s book “Hail Holy Queen” explains this concept on page 125 of his book. His argument is that “We are God’s co-workers” (1 Cor 3:9).

There were many epistles and gospels! The bishops of the Magisterium had tthe task of selecting those that conveyed His Gospel.

They had to discern the truth and the appropriate from the material at hand.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, their selection is what we now hold as the New Testament.

If you’re interested, I recommend Lee Strobel’s book “The case for the Real Jesus” fascinating reading (see his website as well). The author, initially an athiest, presents a series of rigorous assessments of the Bible. From the evidence of his research, the integrity of the Bible is stunning.

I’m not here to debate if Mary is co-redeemer of not. Mary is either co-redeemer or she is not, regardless of what the magestrium officially states about that particular issue. It’s the same with the Bible being the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God apart from a church council determing that it is the Word of God. God is because He is God. The denial of God being God doesn’t make Him not God. It is the same with the Word of God. The written Word of God is the Holy Scritpures, regardless of the opinions of men, or church councils.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

We don’t believe the Church has more power or authority than the Scripture, in the same way we don’t believe the Spirit has more power than Jesus. We believe God gave us a type of the Trinity in the authorities he instituted (all of which can be backed in Scripture and found in the earliest days of the Church):

God the Father is represented by Sacred Tradition, God the Son is represented by the Word of God that is begotten from Sacred Tradition, and God the Spirit is represented by the Church, which interprets and enforces the other two. They are all one truth, one united voice, none of them ruling over the others but all complementing and reinforcing the others.

The belief that the Church should have the authority to interpret Scripture can be found in several Biblical references, as well as in references from the Early Church Fathers such as Ignatius, who said that Christians should not swerve in any way from the teaching of the bishops (because they truthfully taught the teachings of Christ). In the Scripture, this kind of teaching can be found in (looks up a few passages really quickly- not a full collection, just a spur of the moment one):

1 Timothy 1:2, 3 says, “To Timothy, my loyal child in the faith . . . I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine.” The passage suggests Timothy’s faith is taught by Paul, and verse 3 says that no doctrine different from that of Paul is to be taught.

Titus 1:15 says, “Declare these things [of the faith]; exort and reprove with all authority.”

Galations 1:9 says, “As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!”

This again asserts the authority of the bishops in matters of doctrine. There are many other passages I can think of off the top of my head- I just don’t have time right now to bring them up.

There also is a good deal of Biblical evidence, both from the Old Testament (foreshadowing) and from the New Testament that supports the role of the Papacy. Also that’s in the Early Church Fathers . . . I can’t get into it right now .

Just to add a few more scriptures to this, now that I have a little more time:
Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing – for that would be harmful to you.” They are called to submit to the leaders who watch over their souls. These would be the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

1 Peter 5:1-5, “Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it – not for sordid gain but eagerly. Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away. In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders.” This passage is one more that affirms the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Here’s one that’s more clear about the authority in matters of doctrine that the bishop has:

Titus 1:9-13, 2:1, "[For a bishop] must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

"There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what is not right to teach. It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith . . .

“But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine.”

This shows that the bishops had authority in doctrinal matters. There are other passages that describing throwing out of the church someone who deviates on doctrine from official teaching.

I’ve run out of time again. Can’t talk more now.

 

[MDK]

Hello Friends,

“It is written”…

…Jesus Christ wants so much to have a personal relationship with you.

Did Jesus send men out into the world to cointinue the mission from His Father, or did Jesus open an comtemporary version of Barnes and Noble and hand out scrolls to everyone for them to read themselves?

What is the pillar and ground of truth, the Bible or the Church?

Which came first, the Bible or the Church?

Where did the Bible come from?

Is Sola Scriptura supporting the way Christ meant His word to be preserved, or did He want thousands of different interpretations and conflicting doctrines and dogma?

 

[cfrancis]

I’m not here to debate if Mary is co-redeemer of not. Mary is either co-redeemer or she is not, regardless of what the magestrium officially states about that particular issue. It’s the same with the Bible being the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God apart from a church council determing that it is the Word of God. God is because He is God. The denial of God being God doesn’t make Him not God. It is the same with the Word of God. The written Word of God is the Holy Scritpures, regardless of the opinions of men, or church councils.

These are very nice and true words; yes, Scripture is Scripture from the time the ink hit the parchment. No one denies this!
Yet your words avoid the fundamental issue: Scripture does not self-identify as Scripture.
Your words are based upon the bound Bible before you, not upon your study of all contenders for the canon.
Based upon the (lack of) evidence you’ve provided as to why you believe the books bound in the Bible before you are to be in the Bible, your position becomes: if you believe the canon is correct, then it is correct, which allows for the same defense from one hwo holds to a different canon.

 

[Reformed]

These are very nice and true words; yes, Scripture is Scripture from the time the ink hit the parchment. No one denies this!
Yet your words avoid the fundamental issue: Scripture does not self-identify as Scripture.
Your words are based upon the bound Bible before you, not upon your study of all contenders for the canon.
Based upon the (lack of) evidence you’ve provided as to why you believe the books bound in the Bible before you are to be in the Bible, your position becomes: if you believe the canon is correct, then it is correct, which allows for the same defense from one hwo holds to a different canon.

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.