Sola Scriptura - Where is that in the Bible?

[cascherman]

I don’t know how this discussion can go on so long when we know that Christ petitioned the Father to send the Spirit of truth to his apostles, we can only assume from the name, to protect the truth.

If those apostles died and the Spirit of truth did not stay with the successors then the truth died with it, as the Bible was not fully compiled by the time the apostles were dead.

I don’t really understand why some cannot at least admit that God could, if he so chose, prevent a person or people from teaching error, even though they themselves sin.

With that in mind do you deny that God has done that just because you don’t agree with our doctrine? And if such is true, that God’s plan was to have keepers of the truth not just in written form, then are you really sure that you are the correct one in these matters of faith?

You are so sure that you will potentially disregard God’s will because you are almost positive that’s not how he wanted it?

 

[Lampo]

Actually show me something that is required for salvation that is not in the Bible and only taught orally.

Since I answered your original question, why don’t you answer ones I have?

1. Where in Scripture does it say God’s word is only what is written?
2. What Scripture verse supports the idea that the bible is our only rule of faith?
3. Who is an authentic interpreter of the word of God?
4. What’s your take on this quote from St. Augustine? “The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority.”
   The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D.
5. Who in early centuries spent a lifetime hand writing copies of the Bible?
6. Who told us which books belong in the New Testament?
7. Did Old Testament Jews believe in Sola Scriptura?
8. Did Jesus and Paul accept non-Biblical oral and written Traditions?
9. Did Jesus use the Greek Septuagint to teach, which contained the Deuterocanonicals?
10. Who told you (pick any book of the Bible) is inspired?

 

[SyCarl]

As a Catholic, I know that Christ never told His followers to write down a single thing – He commissioned His Apostles to teach the faith, to be active in converting the masses. He did not tell them to write a book and pass it out to people in order that they might believe.

You appear to be quite wrong about this statement.

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”
(Revelation 1:10-11 NASB)

What else could you be wrong about?

 

[cascherman]

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”
(Revelation 1:10-11 NASB)

You are being a devil’s advocate when you say that, because you know that verse is not talking about the Bible as a whole, but the book of Revelations, when John writes to the seven churches. This is similar to a common argument used by many from Revelation that says 'Any who add or take away from this book…". People attribute that to the whole of the Bible, but the author only intended it to be attributed to the book of Revelation.

So, they are indeed right when they say Jesus never instructed the apostles to write down everything he said to be a manual for instruction.

 

[SyCarl]

You are being a devil’s advocate when you say that, because you know that verse is not talking about the Bible as a whole, but the book of Revelations, when John writes to the seven churches. This is similar to a common argument used by many from Revelation that says 'Any who add or take away from this book…". People attribute that to the whole of the Bible, but the author only intended it to be attributed to the book of Revelation.

So, they are indeed right when they say Jesus never instructed the apostles to write down everything he said to be a manual for instruction.

No, the person I was responding to said Jesus didn’t tell his followers to write a single thing. However he did tell John to write Revelation.

 

[t68ware]

No, the person I was responding to said Jesus didn’t tell his followers to write a single thing. However he did tell John to write Revelation.

I will come to his defense…his answer was correct, as the previous poster did say Jesus did not tell His followers to write down a single thing, but He did. The Book of Revelation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I must be charitable enough to assume that your “inter” means infer, OK?

The Bible doesn’t infer. The Bible is clear. I have posted on this site many references to the scriptural origins of Sola Scriptura. It is your responsibility to ferret out that stuff.

Sola Scriptura means that all that is needed for salvation can be found in the scriptures. If you are Catholic you don’t believe that. Because I believe that I am Protestant.

I must say Namesake, that what you just stated is not far from Catholic teaching. There is a name to which you just described here, The Catholic church calls it Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition.

 

[GatorMommy]

Your wording implied nothing existed for 400 years.

No, you ASSUMED that is what I was saying … and you know what they say about assuming?

Incorrect while the final list of official canonical books may not have been established until close to the end of the 4th century, the Gospels themselves and many of Pauls letters were established much earlier in the 2nd century. The Gospels were in such widespread circulation that when it came to choosing the canonical ones they chose the versions that everyone seemed to identify with. Initially John’s met with resistance because of it’s qustioned authenticity but was affirmed by Irenaeus. So even though the official canon wasn’t completely established the works that made up the canon were around and very widespread in the 1st century. That’s why we have so many copies of manuscripts in our possession.

And your point is ??? Not all churches had the same set of works and there were a plethora of letters used that were later deemed not-inspired. My point was that there was no Christian Bible for 400 years. And that is a fact.

I don’t have to show you a reference. You need to show one reference that Christ told the Apostles not to write anything. The fact that they wrote proves you wrong. Christ couldn’t have told them not to write or they wouldn’t have plain and simple. Your logic makes no sense.

Sure you do. As a believer of Sola Scriptura, you have to prove all of your beliefs through the Bible. If we shouldn’t pray to our Holy Mother and to the saints because the Bible doesn’t tells us to, then we can only think that Christ never wanted a Bible written because it’s never mentioned. Writing is a common form of communication so to say that the Apostles only wrote letters to congregations because Christ told them to is asinine.

Quite the contrary, your logic doesn’t make sense. You can’t have it both ways. If you are a believer in Sola Scriptura and attempt to use it to “disprove Catholicism,” you can’t use verses that aren’t there to prove that Christ wanted a Bible written.

 

[po18guy]

1. All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and useful for reproof and correction of error (2 Timothy 3:16). Since Scripture is used to correct and reprove then it must be the authoritative standard by which everything else is judged for its truthfulness.
2. Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34). The character of God is on the line. "God is not a man that He should lie… and hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good (Numbers 23:19). Submitting to the authority of God’s revealed word will guide us in His perfect will.
3. Christ used the authority of Scripture to rebuke Satan’s attempt to deceive Him (Matthew 4:1-11). He gave prepositional statements to accurately convey the truth that Satan attempted to distort. Jesus was our perfect model for rebuking deception.
4. Jesus used the authority of Scriptures to rebuke false teachers (Matthew 22:29). The only way false teachers can be confronted and exposed is in the power of God’s Word.
5. Repentant sinners are saved by hearing and believing the Word (Ephesians 1:13-14). The integrity of the Gospel must be maintained and proclaimed for true conversions (Gal. 1:6-9).
6. Jesus prayed for Christians to be sanctified (set apart) by the truth of His Word (John 17:17). Christians must separate themselves from apostates and false teachers (2 Cor. 6:14-17). God uses His word to divide and to show which people have His approval (1 Cor. 11:19).
7. One must look to the authority of Scripture to be set free from religious deception and become a disciple of Christ (John 8:31-32). Those who follow the traditions and teachings of men remain in legalistic bondage and are often led astray.
8. Christ rebuked the religious leaders for nullifying the Word of God with their tradition (Mark 7:13). Any tradition or teaching that nullifies the Scriptures must be exposed and renounced so others will not be deceived (Eph. 5:11).

johnankerberg.com/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC0901W2.htm

OK. So, why didn’t Christ, who is the WORD made flesh, and whose authority surpasses all, not write a single line? Why did He teach using the oral tradition? Why did Paul admonish Christians to hold fast to the “letters” and the “word of mouth”? According to the bible itself, it is not complete: Luke 3:18, John 20:30 and 21:25. Will you then settle for part of Christ? Don’t you want more, a fuller relationship, a mystical union with Him?

 

[cascherman]

No, the person I was responding to said Jesus didn’t tell his followers to write a single thing. However he did tell John to write Revelation.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think you know what they meant though, and I still think you were being a devil’s advocate because it doesn’t help your case to bring that up, it just detracts from the Catholic argument for enough time to distract people. It was pertaining to the Bible as a compiled source for full sufficiency of faith and understanding, not revelation alone. The seven letters were a very specific instruction.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Again you’re thinking backwards. The Bible contains Jesus teachings. Jesus teachings are the foundation and basis of the teachings of the church. Therefore the Bible guides the church.

I appreciate the link but really don’t need it.

PEACE

The Bible doesn’t contain all of Jesus’ teachings (cf. John 21:25). And Saint Paul tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

“Art, what for you is the pillar and foundation of truth?” And he said, “Scott, for all of us Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth.” I said, “Then why, Art, does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, the household of faith?” There was a silence and he said, “Well, Scott, I think you’re setting me up with that question then.” And I said, “Art, I feel like I’m being set up with lots of problems.” He said, “Well, which church, Scott? There are lots of them.” I said, “Art, how many churches are even applying for the job of being the pillar and foundation of truth? I mean, if you talk about a church saying, ‘We’re the pillar and foundation of truth; look to us and you will hear Christ speak and teach’? How many applicants for the job are there? I only know of one. I only know that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it was founded by Christ; it’s been around for 2000 years and it’s making some outlandish claims that seem awfully similar to 1 Timothy 3:15.” (Scott Hahn Conversion Story)

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Still no answers to the question(s)!

We [Christians] all know that Scripture is inspired. But,:

1. Where does the Bible ever say that only Scripture is inspired and to be used?
2. How do you know which books should be included? How do you know some aren’t in there that shouldn’t be or that there aren’t some that have been included and haven’t been?
3. Why do sola scripturists do things that aren’t explicit in the Bible (besides sola scriptura) - i.e., Sunday worship, belief in the Trinity, etc.
4. If two sola scripturists have completely opposing and contradictory interpretations of a verse of Scripture, who is right?
5. If the Bible is so important - it’s all we need after all (according to sola scripturists) - why did Jesus never write a word or even command His disciples to do so?

 

[po18guy]

Again you’re thinking backwards. The Bible contains Jesus teachings. Jesus teachings are the foundation and basis of the teachings of the church. Therefore the Bible guides the church.

I appreciate the link but really don’t need it.

PEACE

The bible contains a fraction of Jesus’ (and John Baptist’s) teachings. I refer you to John 20:30, John 21:25. and to Luke 3:18. The bible itself says it is incomplete. If you are content with what amounts to Sacred Cliffs Notes of the life of Christ, so be it. I wanted more. The bible is irreplaceable, but it is not all.

The church is the pillar and foundation of truth, because its leader(s) are lead by the Holy Spirit. I refer you to Paul: 1 Timothy 3:14-15 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The church produced the bible. Not the other way round. History, and even the bible itself, bears this out. I refer again to Paul: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (New International Version) So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. Since not everything is in the book, how are you to know the fulness of Christ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and useful for reproof and correction of error (2 Timothy 3:16). Since Scripture is used to correct and reprove then it must be the authoritative standard by which everything else is judged for its truthfulness.

A standard, yes - but not the only one. Even if that text is inspired - although it is, that cannot be shown by quoting it, because there is no evidence that 2 Tim was regarded as Scripture when written.​

1. Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34). The character of God is on the line. "God is not a man that He should lie… and hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good (Numbers 23:19). Submitting to the authority of God’s revealed word will guide us in His perfect will.

Then what need is there of a written NT ? That is good evidence for the authority of the OT Jesus knew, but it implies that any new Scriptures are needless.​

1. Christ used the authority of Scripture to rebuke Satan’s attempt to deceive Him (Matthew 4:1-11). He gave prepositional statements to accurately convey the truth that Satan attempted to distort. Jesus was our perfect model for rebuking deception.

As He was, that implies that He has made all Scripture irrelevant - for when the Fulfilment has come, what need have we of what pointed to Him ?​

Besides, He did many things before His Glorification that no Christian does: such as going to the Temple. It would be quite easy - though frivolous - to make a case “proving” that the OT was “done away in Christ”, along with circunmcision, the Aaronic priesthood, the Temple, etc.

1. Jesus used the authority of Scriptures to rebuke false teachers (Matthew 22:29). The only way false teachers can be confronted and exposed is in the power of God’s Word.
2. Repentant sinners are saved by hearing and believing the Word (Ephesians 1:13-14). The integrity of the Gospel must be maintained and proclaimed for true conversions (Gal. 1:6-9).

The word written - or the word preached ?​

1. Jesus prayed for Christians to be sanctified (set apart) by the truth of His Word (John 17:17). Christians must separate themselves from apostates and false teachers (2 Cor. 6:14-17). God uses His word to divide and to show which people have His approval (1 Cor. 11:19).

His Word was taught - it was not a sacred writing​

1. One must look to the authority of Scripture to be set free from religious deception and become a disciple of Christ (John 8:31-32). Those who follow the traditions and teachings of men remain in legalistic bondage and are often led astray.

See prevous answer.​

But for Tradition, there would be no written NT. See Matthew 26.26.

BTW - when St.Paul preached, he was just a man. His hearers were therefore “in legalistic bondage”, as were the hearers of all other Apostles. Sola Scriptura works only if one has the completed NT - it completely ignores historical perspective

1. Christ rebuked the religious leaders for nullifying the Word of God with their tradition (Mark 7:13). Any tradition or teaching that nullifies the Scriptures must be exposed and renounced so others will not be deceived (Eph. 5:11).

johnankerberg.com/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC0901W2.htm

Answered above.​

Back to you

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You appear to be quite wrong about this statement.

What else could you be wrong about?

However - one book claiming to be inspired =//= 27 books recognised to be inspired as Holy Scripture​

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**Sola Scriptura is a non biblical doctrine made up from the traditions of men.

I cannot find the logic when protestants or non-catholics, quote the early church Fathers, saints and martyrs, to either try and use these Catholic saints writings to Justify Sola Scriptura or contest the Catholic teachings against the Catholic church. I cant find the Logic in using an early church saint writer to contest his own belief in the Catholic faith.

Most protestants convert to Catholicism when they find out the first 1500 years, only the Catholic faith existed. After that comes Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide. There are no saints, or Martyrs for the first 1500 years of Christianity that never heard of such a man made traditionional doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They are probably turning in their graves, when their writings are used to refute their own beliefs in Catholicism.

Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine to protest the already existing 1500+ years of Catholic christian doctrine that comes to us from the Apostolic Sacred Writings and Sacred Traditions. The followers in their protest against the one Holy Catholic, Apostolic church, invent this Sola Scriptura doctrine in order to invalidate the Apostolic Authority of the Catholic faith to teach and baptise all nations. So in essence Protestantism seperated themselves from the apostolic tradition and invented their own doctrinal belief in Christianity, although they took with them some Catholic doctrines.

Sola Scriptura has no Apostolic authority to be taught to the body of Jesus Christ. Besides in the first century of Christians, there were no bibles in circulation to even consider a Sola Scriptura Doctrinal belief. Only letters and the Oral teachings of the Apostles. Not unless Protestants want to invent another Sola Oral teaching to their Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia. I just dont get these Sola’s theories, because with a Sola anything, you put a limit to God.

Sola Scriptura, authorizes, any and all to interpret the Sacred Scriptures to every wind of doctrine. Thus multiple protestant denominations. Most of what I experience that is detremental to the Sola Scriptura doctrine is the symbolic teachings of Jesus and Spirit, which are not scriptural. This I believe comes from the second poison Sola Fide, which dictates to the believer, "I believe the scripture translates this way because the Holy Spirit told or revealed it to me this way. Thus no authority rests to interpret Sacred Scripture with the man made doctrine Sola Scriptura.

Their is plenty of Sacred Scripture to support my opinion, Common sense is all that is required to refute a man made doctrine.B]**

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I will come to his defense…his answer was correct, as the previous poster did say Jesus did not tell His followers to write down a single thing, but He did. The Book of Revelation.

Hmph…the Book of Revelation states that He did - but a statement in a book cannot of itself be used to vindicate such a claim.​

The book was one of the last to be accepted: some Churches - the Copts, IIRC - still don’t accept it. OTOH, they do accept the First Book of Enoch, just as St. Jude seems to have; he quotes from it as prophetic.

Far from being accepted as Holy Scripture, Revelation was even attributed to the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus in some quarters; which shows, if anything could, how little weight was attached to its claims. Besides, other Jewish apocalypses - many of them of great interest for the history of ideas - claim to be God-given: The Apocalypse of Ezra is an excellent example; it’s quoted in the pre-Conciliar Mass for the Dead

Info here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Esdras

The book consists of 16 chapters:

• 4 Ezra - chapters 3 to 14
• 5 Ezra - chaps 1 & 2
• 6 Ezra - chaps 15 & 16
  Anyway, it claims, like many such writings, to be God-given. But claims prove nothing. Nor does it help that many non-canonical books were accepted only by groups
  here & there: for the same was also true of the books now universally received.

 

[Skinny]

If you believe that Jesus commanded his apostles to write the NT, you must also believe that He did so only to a few apostles. Does this mean that the other apostles had nothing of value to teach or preach simply because they did not have “books” in the Bible. Also, another thought, in one of the Gospels, Jesus says to His apostles “I have much more to teach you, but you cannot bear it now”. That always bothered me, like Jesus gave us a cliffhanger. What was it that Jesus could not teach them at this point?? As a Catholic, I am not worried, I know if it was important His Church has passed it on.

In Christ’s Love

 

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by SyCarl
No, the person I was responding to said Jesus didn’t tell his followers to write a single thing. However he did tell John to write Revelation.

I will come to his defense…his answer was correct, as the previous poster did say Jesus did not tell His followers to write down a single thing, but He did. The Book of Revelation.

Wasn’t the Gospel of John written last of all the Gospels? So, wasn’t Revelation even later? If so, then Christ commanded only John, the son of His mother, to write, since the other Gospels were already written. What are the dates involved here?

We sem to be getting rather nitpicky, given the NT says in at least three places (John 20:30; 21:25 and Luke 3:18), that it is incomplete. Either you go by all of Sacred Scripture, plus all of Sacred Tradition, or you’ve made Christ into clay that you mold to the shape that is most pleasing to you. Thousands of denominations tend to bear this out.

IMHO

Christ’s peace.

 

[Samedi]

Hello,

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ***only ***authority? Where is Bible-only in the the Bible?

The bible is a compilation of writings that have a similar theme; one for Old testament and the other for New testament. There were many written documents that did not meet the standards of canonization.
Thus the bible as the sola scriptura will not be found in any writing.
BUT, just as there was need for a universal creed (apostles Creed), there was need for authoritative set of scripture to avoid heresy. With the bible the original faith is preserved without malicious subtraction or addition.