Sola Scriptura

[Gamera]

… This parable is the same teaching as:
Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luke 17:35Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:36Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:37And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.
Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

You (and Darby, who invented the Rapture) assume that the ones being taken away in Luke 17 are being taken away from something good. They aren’t. They are being swept away like the victims of the Great Flood. The spared ones are the ones “left behind” – the man left in the field, the woman left grinding – they are the one’s spared from disaster. Only since ‘rapture theology’ has anyone interpreted Luke 17 as meaning that the ones taken away are the fortunate and the ones “left behind” the unfortunate. The text doesn’t support that interpretation.

Do you really believe an Almighty God, who created the universe and everything in it in 6 days, who took our place on the cross.
To give us a place in Heaven, would require we believe in a wafer to save us, rather than trusting solely on the Name and Word of Jesus our Messiah to save us?

“Rather than?” No, not “rather than.” The “wafer,” as you call Him, IS Jesus, “who created the universe and everything in it in 6 days.” 1 Cor 11:17. You present a false dichotomy between trusting in Jesus and trusting in Jesus. Since the Bible teaches that Jesus is the same Lord both in “the wafer” and in heaven, there is no dichotomny and no conflict.

BTW, I’m not actually the one you meant to respond to – check the thread and you’ll find that a different poster actually posted the quote about the Eucharist which you attributed to me.
Seeking_Godl3623032:

To be "born again’ means we are no longer under the law of sin or the punishment sin requires.

To be “born again” means to be baptized, John 3:5. But to address your point, if you sin after having been “born again” (by anyone’s definition) then you will be punished unless you repent and are forgiven. You don’t escape punishment by merely saying, “Lord, Lord.” “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall be saved, but he who DOES the will of my Father who is in heaven,” Matt 7:21.

 

[po18guy]

To be saved.? There is nothing you can do. It is what God does!!!

Jesus took our place on the cross. To give us a place in Heaven

Romans 10:9-11That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture says, whosoever believes upon Jesus shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

Jesus Christ died on the Cross and rose from the grave. He paid the penalty for our sin and bridged the gap between God and people.

God says…

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” 1 Timothy 2:5

“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” 1 Peter 3:18

“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Jesus Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8

“If we walk in the Light, as Jesus is in the Light, we have fellowship one with another, for the Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleans us from all Sin.” I John 1:7

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8,9

This all is 100% Catholic. Every single bit of it is from Luther’s Catholic bible, even after he modified it. Welcome!

 

[MementoMori3283]

You don’t escape punishment by merely saying, “Lord, Lord.” “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall be saved, but he who DOES the will of my Father who is in heaven,” Matt 7:21.

Seeking_God used to have Rom 10:13 as his sig, but has since changed it. Hopefully, he has been considering that one must consider the whole truth and not a part of the truth.

 

[brkn1]

Excellent! This, again, shows how critical the question of interpretation is. The Jews of Paul’s time (and our modern time) had access to the Old Testament; that is, the Jewish Scriptures. At the time Paul was preaching, they would have fallen into three camps, with differing approaches:

1. The Sadducees. It may surprise you to know that the Sadducees actually were the Protestants of the Jewish sects at the time. They held to a smaller and stricter list of which books were Scripture, and they believed literal interpretation of Scripture alone, rejecting all oral tradition–sound familiar? Consequently, the Sadducees denied many doctrines, such as the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead. This probably contributed in part to the poor reception of Christianity by the Sadducees.
2. The Pharisees. They too held to the Old Testament, but they had a larger canon, they believed in somewhat more allegorical interpretations, and they believed in the authority of their oral traditions. As such, they had several schools of thought, the most important ones being the rival schools of Shammai and Hillel. The traditions of Shammai were very rigorous and legalistic, and are the teachings condemned by Jesus in the Gospels. The traditions of Hillel were much more inclusive and gracious, and many scholars believe that the teachings of Jesus parallel the tradition of Hillel in many areas. It is known that many Pharisees–probably those of Hillel’s school–converted to Christianity in the early Church.
3. The Christians. (Specifically, the Apostle Paul.) As with the Pharisees and Sadducees,

So, again, we see three groups using the exact same Scriptures and coming to wildly different conclusions, depending on their interpretation. This again highlights the importance of adopting the interpretation passed down from Christ and the Apostles, instead of one’s own personal judgment.

I completely agree with you, brkn1, that Satan seeks to disrupt the unity of the Church, and I also agree that the Holy Spirit has been sent to guide the Church into all Truth. We are told to test the spirits, to see if they are from God. So we know that the Holy Spirit is given to us so that we may all be of one mind (2 Cor. 13:11) and be one, even as God is one (John 17:11).

This is why, when I look at the incredible disharmony among the Protestants, I am sadly forced to conclude that the one principle they all share–sola scriptura, the private interpretation of Scripture–is not a doctrine given by the Holy Spirit, because it daily increases disharmony in the Church, in direct opposition to the commandment that there should be no schism in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:25).

Private interpretation leads to the same end as the Sadducees, who ended up discarding many of the most important and glorious doctrines of God in favour of their personal take on Scripture. The only viable alternative for a true lover of God is to follow in the footsteps of Paul, and bring yourself in harmony with the divine oral doctrine given to him by the Lord Himself.

As mentioned above, it is God’s will that we all be one. The Holy Spirit will not help us if we each try to join with the Truth alone… this is reflective of spiritual pride.

True faith and obedience to God require that we join the continually perfect Church, the very same spotless Bride of Christ which Jesus established and the Apostles died to preserve. It is only within this visible Church that we will find unity of doctrine, divine authority of interpretation, unbroken historical continuity with the true Church founded by Christ, and the fullness of “the faith delivered once, for all, unto the saints.” It is only within this one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church that we will find true oneness with one another and with God.

"There will be one flock and one Shepherd… the glory which You gave Me, I have given them, that they may be one, just as We are one."

–Seraphim

I sensed where this whole discussion would go from the start.

Your comparison of Protestants to the Sadduccees has a dishonest absurdity to it that would naturally follow your dishonest attempt to claim to be a Protestant at first.

A Pharisee comparison to Catholics and many “Catholic Lite” Protestants would be a bit closer to reality though. Legalistic, “only THEY have all the answers”, man’s traditions that Jesus condemned as perverting and making useless the Word of God, hypocritial, etc.

I find the common claim here, that Protestants are the general cause of all disharmony etc. to also be absurd.
The Roman Catholic Church has a history of being the ones who started the great division (Schism) of the Church by making claims for the Pope being the head etc,using a non-general council. There was not even anyone from the parting Orthodox Church in the councils where the final decisions were made. So much for the idea of the use of a general council to make church decisions
Major divisions were present long before those caused by Protestants came along. There were obvious reasons for why the Protestants protested in the beginning too.

I personally have noticed many Protestant churches going into serious error too, as they get farther away from the only dependable source of God’s revelation of His Will for His church, which is described clearly in the Bible and in the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ contained in God’s Word.
God did not write in a manner that can not easily be understood by all sincere seekers of Him.
The false claim, that only certain people can correctly interpret God’s Word, goes against the whole idea that Truth speaks for itself.

 

[lampstand]

The Roman Catholic Church has a history of being the ones who started the great division (Schism) of the Church by making claims for the Pope being the head etc,using a non-general council. There was not even anyone from the parting Orthodox Church in the councils where the final decisions were made.

This is just as telling, in itself.



What is it about Orthodox partisans, that they complain so much about the Pope when he was basically doing his job? They gave him a hard subject to tackle, he tackled it and when they didn’t like the results, suddenly, out of thin air, they pulled ‘reasons’ that he wasn’t so important anymore. When someone does things that move them out of the community of the Church, they excommunicate themselves-- that’s what the word means.

Funny how the Orthodox had no problem with the primacy of the See of St. Peter before the Schism, yet when they were subject to its legitimate action of redress in a case they provoked, they seemed to magically ‘forget’ the way Church leadership had already progressed for more than a thousand years. Talk to Orthodox today and they act as if the Papacy never existed in the first place. Talk about revisionist history.

As for the Orthodox supposed claim to greater adherence to tradition, if you really are the church that’s blessed and is acting out what God wants, why do you have so many national and international administrative problems? Why is there so much internecine strife? Why did you try to crush the Old Believers and then have to reabsorb them years later? Why is there so much nationalistic prejudice and lack of brotherly cooperation among your churches? Why the breach with the Oriental Orthodox Churches? Well, I know why, but if you really had something like the Magisterium, would this happen? In your case, the Magisterium is conspicuous by its absence! And I’m not even going to ask you why the Greek Orthodox Church has placed such obstacles in the way of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. You won’t even let them call themselves by that name. No, you don’t need the clarifying authority of a Pope, even though you have so many sub-churches for each ethnic group that today, in the United States for example, you’ll have several people in the same city calling themselves Bishop of (Name). (And even though the head of the Coptic Church calls himself Pope. Ahem. If you want to talk about Orthodox conceit, let’s look at how the Greeks claim to have invented the word ‘Papa’ or father. Well, they have nicknames in Latin too. )

As I asked a teacher many years ago, “Why don’t we just call them the first Protestants?”

 

[Evlogitos]

I sensed where this whole discussion would go from the start.

Your comparison of Protestants to the Sadduccees has a dishonest absurdity to it

Do you deny that the Sadducees believed in sola scriptura and rejected all “traditions of men?”

Do you deny that the Sadducees consequently had extremely wrongheaded doctrines, based on their personal, subjective interpretations of Scripture?

I fail to see why this comparison is dishonest or absurd. It looks to me like the Sadducees were in many ways strikingly like Old Testament Protestants.

that would naturally follow your dishonest attempt to claim to be a Protestant at first.

I don’t know where you got that impression! I have always had “Orthodox” as my religion in my profile, and I have never claimed to be Protestant on this board.

I find the common claim here, that Protestants are the general cause of all disharmony etc. to also be absurd.

Nobody said Protestants cause all disharmony; merely that Protestants base their faith on an individualistic principle that by logical necessity will multiply rather than heal doctrinal divisions.

Because the Church is made up of humans, there will be times within even the Catholic and Orthodox churches that pride and human sinfulness will cause division. This is a tragedy and a sin against the Body of Christ.

However, our churches are based on community of doctrine and unity of doctrine, not private interpretation, and we struggle very hard to create ever more perfect unity. This is what defines the ancient churches versus the Protestants, and this is why our divisions are usually minor and infrequent.

I personally have noticed many Protestant churches going into serious error too, as they get farther away from the only dependable source of God’s revelation of His Will for His church, which is described clearly in the Bible and in the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ contained in God’s Word.

As I have suggested, if you claim that the Scriptures are only way to perceive God’s will, you ignore at least the first three hundred years of Christianity, and spit on the graves of the martyrs. Please, brother brkn1, I invite and entreat you to read the things written by the earliest Christians to see if they believed as you do today. Don’t take my word for it! Read what the holy martyrs wrote of their faith, even mere hours before they were ripped apart by their Roman executioners.

God did not write in a manner that can not easily be understood by all sincere seekers of Him.

If you give ten sincere seekers a Bible and tell them to read it, you will get eleven different doctrines coming out it. Does this prove that the Scriptures are written in a manner easily understood?

Doesn’t even Peter himself state, for example, that there are things in Paul’s letters that are hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable end up twisting?

The false claim, that only certain people can correctly interpret God’s Word, goes against the whole idea that Truth speaks for itself.

The Truth absolutely speaks for itself! But “the heart is deceitful above all things,” so we can only correctly interpret God’s Word when we stand within the Truth and Faith of the Apostles that has been kept from generation to generation for two thousand years.

 

[Fisher]

How can you be sure?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” -2nd Timothy 3:16

Evidence That the Bible is God’s Word:

Because it claims to be (as read in our Scripture above).

Because It hits the nail right on the head concerning the sinfulness of mankind. 2nd Timothy 3:1-7 reads, “: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. **For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” ** Mankind is evil through and through. The humanists say man can improve. The New Age gang says that we can become gods. Evolutionists claim we all came from apes (with NO proof whatsoever). The Mormons say we can become gods. Do you think the American Psychiatric Association is going to tell you that you’re a sinner on your way to Hell if you die in your sins? No! This is not just religion friend, this is YOUR LIFE!!! What Book is there on this earth that gives you the plain truth about mankind and life? THE WORD OF GOD is the only answer! The Bible plainly teaches that man is prone to destruction because man has a sin-nature (Romans 3:10,23;5:12;7:21).

 

[Gamera]

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” -2nd Timothy 3:16

Evidence That the Bible is God’s Word:

Because it claims to be (as read in our Scripture above).

Because It hits the nail right on the head concerning the sinfulness of mankind.

And exactly these same arguments can be made that Apostolic Tradition constitutes God’s word.

Apostolic Tradition

• is given by inspiration of God
• is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righeousness
• claims to be God’s word
• hits the nail right on the head concerning the sinfulness of mankind.

So by these arguments, one should accept the Catholic position, that God’s word consists of both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Fisher]

It is incredible to think that even though the Bible is the worlds number one best seller it is probably the most neglected, abused, and criticized book in history. Some see it as nothing more than a fiction or piece of fantasy. Others have tried to literally rid the world of as many Bibles as possible, such as some satanic groups, for example, who engage in “Bible burning”. Others still, in the cults, twist the contents of this book for their own purposes. Despite this, the Bible remains as a remarkable book. It has changed the lives of millions throughout history.

Another source of evidence well worth considering comes from discoveries in the field of archaeology. A good example of the historical accuracy of the Bible is found in the person of King Solomon. For years critics of the Bible doubted the description of King Solomon’s wealth as some sort of fairy tale. But between the years 1925-1943 archaeologists unearthed the remains of some of Solomon’s garrisons at Megiddo, in northern Palestine. It was here that archaeologists discovered the remains of horse stables capable of holding hundreds of horses, and the remains of the barracks for Solomon’s chariot riders.

A New Testament example is found in the account where Jesus was brought before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who sentenced him to death. However, the name Pontius Pilate was known only from Jewish and Christian sources; there was never any mention of him from Roman sources. This in itself did not necessarily mean that the Bible was wrong, but it did seem to appear that there was a certain lack of credibility when the Bible spoke of a Roman ruler whose name did not appear anywhere in Roman history. However, during later excavation at Caesarea archaeologists found a stone plaque (recording the dedication of a building) with a Latin inscription naming `Pontius Pilate, Praefect of Judaea.’

So here are just two examples of archaeology authenticating the historical reliability of the Bible. And what is all the more amazing is that in most cases, archaeological digs are often not sponsored by Christian groups seeking to prove the Bible. Most are sponsored by governmental agencies or educational institutions, many of them Jewish or Muslim. Critics of the Bible would be quick to publicize discrepancies if they could find any.

Prophecy

The final evidence for the authenticity of the Bible is from the area of prophecy. The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies which have come to pass. No book in history has even come close to the Bible when it comes to fulfillment of prophecy.

Here are just some examples: More than two centuries before it happened, the prophet Isaiah said that Babylon would be overthrown by the Medes (Isaiah 13:17) and that the conqueror’s name would be Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28).

The Prophet Ezekiel said that the large Babylonian city of Tyre would be scraped away so that only bare rock would remain (Ezekiel 26:4-5). About 60 years later, Alexander the Great tore down its walls and buildings, and with the rubble built a causeway to a nearby island. The city was literally scraped away. Today fishermen dry their nets on the bare rock site of the old city, never rebuilt, exactly as the Bible foretold in the book of Bible Ezekiel (26:14).

One more brief example to illustrate prophetic accuracy in the Bible is that there are over three hundred prophecies made about Jesus in the Old Testament. Prophecies such as His place of birth, how he would die, His rejection by the nation of Israel, and so on. All these prophecies were made hundreds of years before Jesus ever came to earth, and fulfilled in His life and ministry.

 

[Gamera]

Fisher, Catholics agree that the Bible is God’s word. That isn’t the issue. The issue is sola scriptura – the Protestant tradition that the Bible is the only source of God’s word.

 

[living_water]

I am frustrated beyond belief reading this thread. It is unreal. Person after person comes here and writes long, tangential, irrelevant, practially paranoid posts about Scripture that don’t even address the arguments/issues at hand.

And it’s like they cannot even hear or comprehend it when people explain that they aren’t addressing the issues. It’s like all reason and logic has just been flipped off like a light switch. It really does remind me of some of the thinking that goes on in cults.

 

[Fisher]

Fisher, Catholics agree that the Bible is God’s word. That isn’t the issue. The issue is sola scriptura – the Protestant tradition that the Bible is the only source of God’s word.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me" -John 10:27.

SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSPIRED AND INHERENTLY AUTHORITATIVE.

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals. Thus there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.

THE TRUTH AND THE SCRIPTURE

The Lord Jesus Christ, in His great high priestly prayer, declared clearly the truth of God’s Word. He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” The Lord Himself therefore identified truth with the written Word. There is no source other than to Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

 

[Gamera]

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me" -John 10:27.

“Hear,” not read. How does that verse support sola scriptura? If anything it disproves sola scriptura.

SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSPIRED AND INHERENTLY AUTHORITATIVE.

Not according to the Bible itself. “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 …” 1 Thes. 2:13.

Apostolic Tradition (the Apostle’s preaching) is every bit as much God’s word as is the Bible. 1 Thes. 2:13 makes that abundantly clear.

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16).

Right. And the preaching of the Apostles is God’s revelation in verbal form. Both are equally God’s word.

The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Right. NOT that the Bible ALONE contains God’s word, nor that God inspired ONLY the Bible. 1 Thes 2:13 shows that God equally inspired the Apostles’ preaching.

When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional, i.e. logical, written sentences.

John 10:35 doesn’t say that the Bible ALONE contains God’s word.

God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.

Chapter and verse? Where does the Bible say that the Bible ALONE contains God’s word? Not in any verse you’ve supplied here.
Fisher;3627036:

Thus there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.

But the Bible doesn’t say that! 1 Thes. 2:13 plainly says that God’s word is NOT limited to the Bible, but also subsists in the preaching of the Apostles (what Catholics call Apostolic Tradition).

 

[Stephen_C]

Fisher,
Just to give you a hand here is the link to the entire bible. It is better understood as a whole.
drbo.org

Since it is a Catholic book, here is the url to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to help you with understanding our bible.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Peace be with you

 

[living_water]

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me" -John 10:27.

Is the implication that anyone who disagress with you on this theological matter not hearing the voice of Jesus? Becaues if it is, I would recommend spending some time in quiet humility asking God to grant you insight into your attitude. Suffice it to say, if that is your belief, it is a gross untruth.

SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSPIRED AND INHERENTLY AUTHORITATIVE.

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16).

The verse you quoted says ALL scripture. It neither says nor implies that ONLY Scripture contains God’s revelation.

There is nowhere in Scripture where truth is limited to Scripture alone. Saying it is TRUE, and God-inspired, is not the same thing as saying nothing else is true.

If God wanted all truth to be limited by a written record, then why didn’t Jesus write a book? Do you not believe He could have? What does the fact He did not imply?

 

[Fisher]

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18, “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

OTHER SOURCES OF AUTHORITY CONDEMNED

Furthermore, in refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, **“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their tradition on a par with the Word of God. He condemned them because they were attempting to corrupt the very basis of truth by equating their traditions to the Word of God. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “[You are] making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition. **
The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5,6 “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated. Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

THE EXPRESSION “SOLA SCRIPTURA”

From the time of the giving of the Decalogue on Mt. Sinai, when Holy God wrote with His finger on the tablets of stone (Exodus 31:18), until this present day, the written word of God has been extant in the world. The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” as the measure of truth is short hand, as it were, for the emphatic and repeated statements of Scripture and of the commandment of God. The very phrase " It is written" means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. It separates from all other sources the corpus what a man is to believe. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19)

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself. (Psalm 119:160)

 

[Gamera]

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority

Wrong on both counts. Jesus referred to the non-scriptural Jewish tradition that Zechariah died between the altar and the sanctuary (Luke 11:51). And the author of the Letter to the Hebrews referred to the non-scriptural Jewish tradition that the prophet Isaiah was sawed in half (Heb 11:37). So right there, you’re doubly mistaken – niether Jesus nor the Apostles limited themselves to Scripture.

 

[Fisher]

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”

THE CLAIM THAT SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS NOT POSSIBLE

In an attempt to justify a tradition as an authority, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John’s gospel where it is stated, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen”. (John 21:25) Of course there were many of the deeds and sayings of the Lord, which are not recorded in Scripture. Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile. **The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true. **

Another desperate attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states, “…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12).

From the earliest times a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written.** “…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6). **

 

[Gamera]

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him.

But that’s not true! I just showed you that Jesus referred to non-scriptural tradition as authoritative in Luke 11:51, and that the author of the letter to the Hebrews did the same in Heb 11:37.

 

[Gamera]

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

So why do you subtract from God’s word? Since 1 Thes 2:13 tells us that the Apostles’ preaching constitutes God’s word, why are you taking away from God’s word by discarding half of it and keeping only the Bible?