Sola Scriptura is True

[DD2007]

If everything that was written is Canonical, then explain why Protestants don’t accept Psalm 151 as Canonical? That Psalm was written by David, who composed most of t he 150 Psalms are that are Canonical for Protestant Christianity.

It is not received by the Jews as written by David.

If everything written by an author of the Protestant Canon is canonical, then explain the omission of the Psalms of Solomon, which was written by the same author as Song of Solomon?

It is not received by the Jews as written by that author.

And if you are limiting it to the NT, then explain the omission of Three Corinthians and Epistle to the Laodicieans.

Not of true apostolic origin.

 

[DD2007]

How do you know that it was indeed written by the St. Paul?

It claims it was and the church has always said it was because they received it from him and he testified to it while he was alive.

 

[DD2007]

Right… so in at least some cases, Peter was incorrect. Why accept his opinion on this matter as necessarily true, then?

I smell some circular reasoning here.

Because everyone has sinned, however when the apostles and prophets spoke from God in Holy Writ it was kept from error by divine inspiration. That’s one example of why the bible is true. If these guys were lying they wouldn’t have made themselves look so bad in their stories about themselves.

 

[DD2007]

Yes, it is rather curious, isn’t it? I mean, if it were, we would all agree on this passage.

It’s even more curious that SyCarl acknowledges the authority of a Catholic/Orthodox Saint.

One may conclude then, that at this point, it is proven to these two and other Protestants, sola scriptura is NOT sufficient.

But, of course now, two things will happen:

1. This thread will go on for at least 45 more pages.
2. This post (mine) will be ignored by all.

Scripture is sufficient because the bible says it is by saying it will make one competent for EVERY good work. If there is anything that we need in the way of faith and practice that isn’t in scripture then this verse isn’t true. So one must either believe in the inerrancy of scripture which includes sola scriptura or one must deny that the bible is God’s inerrant word.

 

[gearhead]

It claims it was and the church has always said it was because they received it from him and he testified to it while he was alive.

So… the authority of the Bible has its foundation in the authority of the Church?

 

[gearhead]

Because everyone has sinned, however when the apostles and prophets spoke from God in Holy Writ it was kept from error by divine inspiration.

But how do you know this?

Is it because the Bible says so? Then you’re using circular reasoning: “the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true”.

Is it because of something else? Then you’re arguing against Sola Scriptura, because you’re invoking things other than the Bible.

That’s one example of why the bible is true. If these guys were lying they wouldn’t have made themselves look so bad in their stories about themselves.

This fails to consider the possibility that the books of the Bible weren’t written by the people who Christians now consider to be the authors.

 

[DD2007]

One can refer to the Church Fathers and still accept Sola Scriptura. They can be useful as can any other commentary on Scripture without having the same authority as Scripture. The post I replied to said that we should look at what the Doctors of the Church had said. I merely indicated that I had and gave examples. Referring to the Church Fathers can show that Protestant concepts did not arise for the first time during the Reformation even if other ideas can also be found in them.

Correct. John Calvin, for instance, referenced the Church Fathers more than any other Reformer. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that we don’t communicate with one another. It means that God has given us scripture as his divine relelation to us and that is the only authority binding on our conscience in the matter of faith and practice. We can still talk about it, write about it, construct catechisms and creeds to explain it.

 

[Newbie2]

These discussions always amuse me.

The Didache was not written, dictated, or blessed as true by an apostle of Christ. And your proof is what, exactly? It is not scripture. Nobody ever said it was, did they? We have 27 actual apostolic books in the New Testament. We have 39 books written, dictated, or blessed as true by an actual prophet of God in the Old Testament. These are held to be authoritative by traditional Jews and Christians alike.

Scripture is sufficient because the bible says it is by saying it will make one competent for EVERY good work. If there is anything that we need in the way of faith and practice that isn’t in scripture then this verse isn’t true. So one must either believe in the inerrancy of scripture which includes sola scriptura or one must deny that the bible is God’s inerrant word.

With all due respect to a fellow Christian, this is one of the most dizzying and bizarre defenses of Sola Scriptura I’ve read to date.

Your conclusions are a non sequitur. Nowhere does Scripture self-authenticate itself as the sole authority on matters of faith. “…it will make one competent for EVERY good work.” does not equal “…inerrancy of scripture which includes sola scriptura”.

Your logic is very confusing, but nonetheless entertaining.

 

[DD2007]

But how do you know this?

Is it because the Bible says so? Then you’re using circular reasoning: “the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true”.

It is not circular reasoning because we believe the bible is true based on the testimony of Jesus Christ.

We know the bible is a reletively reliable book because it is the most scrutinized book on earth and has been found to vindicate itself whenever tested. It is also the most well preserved ancient text we have. If we threw it’s testimony out as unreliable based on textual evidence we would have to throw out EVERY other ancient tet and would have no history to work with. No Herodotus, Livy, Plato, Aristotle…anything. The bible is better preserved than all of them.

Due to its proven reliability we look to see what it says. It claims as it’s central figure Jesus Christ and he claims he is the Son of God. We can see by the testimony of the scruiptures that there is reliable evidence to believe that he is the Son of God because he raised the dead and was himself raised from the dead and his followers took over the Roman Empire and changed the world.

Based on this we must wonder what was Jesus Christ’s view of scripture. He is recorded by everyone as having the highest view possible that scripture was the very words of God and he claimed to be God. So if you believe the testimony of Christ you will believe the scriptures are true.

Is it because of something else? Then you’re arguing against Sola Scriptura, because you’re invoking things other than the Bible.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean you are limited to using only the bible for everything. It means that the bible is complete to teach you all things in faith and practice so that one will be equipped to follow God in every way he can.

This fails to consider the possibility that the books of the Bible weren’t written by the people who Christians now consider to be the authors.

That is calling the early christians and the apostles liars. We believe their testimony and find that it is reliable. Some do not. It is a matter of faith and discernment.

 

[DD2007]

These discussions always amuse me.
With all due respect to a fellow Christian, this is one of the most dizzying and bizarre defenses of Sola Scriptura I’ve read to date.

Your conclusions are a non sequitur. Nowhere does Scripture self-authenticate itself as the sole authority on matters of faith. “…it will make one competent for EVERY good work.” does not equal “…inerrancy of scripture which includes sola scriptura”.

Your logic is very confusing, but nonetheless entertaining.

If there is any good work you can be trained for that scripture doesn’t prepare you for is this passage true?

no.

Sola Scriptura stands. It is sufficient.

 

[DD2007]

Besides, any other way and you get stuck with the whole chicken and the egg thing.
“Preacher, how did we get the Bible?”
“Child, the Church put it together and separated the wheat from the chaff and thus we have the Bible”
“Preacher, where did we get the Church?”
“Child, from the Bible”

This illustrates your misunderstanding.

The Church didn’t put it together. Scripture was receivged by the people of God first the Jews then the Church. It was RECEIVED from the prphets first who spoke from God and then by the apostles/prophets of Jesus Christ who spoke from God. We go the Church from Christ and it was built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles with Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

Preacher - How did we get the bible.

Child - God inspired it to be written by the prophets and the apostles who over many years delivered it to the people of God.

Preacher - Where did we get the Church?

Child - From God through his sovereign purpose of election.

 

[DD2007]

So… the authority of the Bible has its foundation in the authority of the Church?

In the authority of the prophets and apostles.

 

[gearhead]

It is not circular reasoning because we believe the bible is true based on the testimony of Jesus Christ.

And what’s your source for the testimony of Jesus Christ? The Bible. Again: circular reasoning.

We know the bible is a reletively reliable book because it is the most scrutinized book on earth and has been found to vindicate itself whenever tested.

No, it hasn’t. For example:

Give me a year when Herod was alive AND Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Tell me how Judas died.

What’s the name of Joseph’s father?

Due to its proven reliability we look to see what it says. It claims as it’s central figure Jesus Christ and he claims he is the Son of God. We can see by the testimony of the scruiptures that there is reliable evidence to believe that he is the Son of God because he raised the dead and was himself raised from the dead and his followers took over the Roman Empire and changed the world.

I’ll give you part of it: you can tell from the Bible that there was a community of believers who fervently believed in the message you describe. Whether it actually happened is a whole other question.

Based on this we must wonder what was Jesus Christ’s view of scripture. He is recorded by everyone as having the highest view possible that scripture was the very words of God and he claimed to be God. So if you believe the testimony of Christ you will believe the scriptures are true.

No… Jesus had plenty of praise in the Gospels for the Hebrew scriptures… i.e. the Torah and the Tanakh. He said nothing at all about the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles or Revelation. If you’re going to accept those as “scripture” even though Jesus never talked about them, I’m really not clear on how you can also exclude, say, the Gospel of Thomas or the Book of Mormon.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean you are limited to using only the bible for everything. It means that the bible is complete to teach you all things in faith and practice so that one will be equipped to follow God in every way he can.

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only valid source of doctrine. Now… in order to not be inherently contradictory, you need to find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the Bible.

That is calling the early christians and the apostles liars. We believe their testimony and find that it is reliable. Some do not. It is a matter of faith and discernment.

No, not necessarily liars. It can mean that, for example, they were occasionally honestly mistaken when they presumed the authorship of some of the Biblical books that don’t state the author’s name plainly.

And as for the apostles being liars… how do you know they weren’t? While I can see why you wouldn’t like the implications, why exclude it as a possibility if you’re considering all possible explanations for how the Bible came to be?

 

[Newbie2]

If there is any good work you can be trained for that scripture doesn’t prepare you for is this passage true?

no.

Sola Scriptura stands. It is sufficient.

Um…hate to break your bubble, but training for “good work(s)” is not the main intention of Scripture, unless you happen to also believe that good works will earn one salvation.

 

[DD2007]

Can one claim to have Apostolic biblical teachings without a living Apostolic succession? .

Yes. That is how we have apostolic teaching available to us today. The Holy Spirit inspired the truth to be written. The Holy Spirit preserved it as written. All who read it are being taugh by the apostles.

Their “successors” are not apostles of Christ as they never knew him in person but are apostles of the apostles and so forth. The truth is measured by the Holy Scriptures because listening to the apostles/prophets of God is how we know truth from error.

1 John 4:6 ESV
6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

So all who teach the gospel as recorded by the Holy Spirit are successors of the apostles. The gospel is the whole point and is the truth that the church holds up.

 

[DD2007]

And what’s your source for the testimony of Jesus Christ?

And as for the apostles being liars… how do you know they weren’t? While I can see why you wouldn’t like the implications, why exclude it as a possibility if you’re considering all possible explanations for how the Bible came to be?

The clear explaination taught by God how the bible came to be is included in the passage already posted that reads “ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God.”

Romans 10:17 ESV
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

It is not circular reasoning to believe the testimony of Christ is the source for beliving the bible is true because we have established first why we have considered the testimony of Christ as valid in the bible and worth our time for consideration based on many different sources.

 

[DD2007]

Um…hate to break your bubble, but training for “good work(s)” is not the intention of Scripture, unless you happen to also believe that good works will earn one salvation.

People do things everyday. That is how we are made. When you do anything you are doing somethig and to do nothing is sloth.

Good works are the fruit of salvation not the door to it.

 

[Newbie2]

The clear explaination taugh by God how the bible came to be is included in the passage already posted that reads “ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God.”

Romans 10:17 ESV
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

It is not circular reasoning to believe the testimony of Christ is the source for beliving the bible is true because we have established first why we have considered the testimony of Christ as valid in the bible and worth our time for consideration** based on many different sources**.

Ouch. I think you just shot a hole in your own Sola Scriptura argument.

 

[Newbie2]

People do things everyday. That is how we are made. When you do anything you are doing somethig and to do nothing is sloth.

Good works are the fruit of salvation not the door to it.

What does this have to do with good works being evidence for Sola Scriptura??

People do things=the Bible is the sole authority on salvation? Bizzare conclusion, methinks.

 

[DD2007]

Ouch. I think you just shot a hole in your own Sola Scriptura argument.

No the scriptures train a child of God for every good work as clearly stated in the verse.

Those who are unregenerate and have not come to faith first need to hear the message and then find reason to trust the scriptures before the scriptures can be used for their intended purpose.