Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter teak421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

teak421

Guest
Hello all…

I’m sure this subject has been discussed… like a lot. But, I was wondering if we could get someone who believes in this doctrine to put forward a case FOR Sola Sciptura.

Would be interested to see both historical and scriptural references.
  • Michael
 
teak421 said:
Oh my goodness, read today’s reading about foundations… I had to create a note on my blog!

Check it out… edailymissal.org/2009/07/foundations.html
  • Michael
Click to expand...
My in-laws and wife (soon to be RC convert) are Protestant and they will argue this point to the end of the earth. The more I read the Bible, no matter which version, it states itself that we, as Christians, are to follow both scripture and tradition of the Church. I find am a recent revert, and to me, it is finally coming clear the true word of Christ is unity with love, not division among his Church. God Bless

Revert TSIEG

p.s. posted on your blog as well! 👍
 
I believe the fatal flaw of Sola Scriptura is Protestants moved from the Pope is infallible to “I” am infallible.
 
I would note that Jesus directs the apostles to :
19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
Click to expand...
Matthew 28:19-20

He had previously promised:
Code: 
 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Click to expand...
Luke 10:16

They were sent to preach and teach; not to write. The New Testament Scriptures were lecture notes and the Old Testament a reference book. One does not go to school to read the lecture note and reference books. One goes to hear the lectures and use the notes and references to help one remember what was taught.

The Ethiopian in Acts 8 knew this:
So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Click to expand...
He needed the teacher.
 
teak421 said:
Hello all…

I’m sure this subject has been discussed… like a lot. But, I was wondering if we could get someone who believes in this doctrine to put forward a case FOR Sola Sciptura.

Would be interested to see both historical and scriptural references.
  • Michael
Click to expand...
I don’t know that I’d want to bother here, the thing is it’s not just one verse, but sola Scriptura is a variety of truths summed up in that little phrase.

It’s a bit like the doctrine of the Trinity, you can’t just take one little verse and say there it is. So you go through and show the three persons and show that each person is God and there is one God and really to do it rightly, well, it takes a fair amount of work.

And what tends to happen on discussion forum is just derailment and confusion, because you really can’t do a good job of showing it in one or two posts. Plus the fact that many thing sola Scriptura means everything is in the bible.

But in any case, if you are actually interested, there is a three volume set that does a fair job. You can see it at christiantruth.com/books.html

It’s the three volume Holy Scripture the Ground and Pillar of our Faith You get a volume on the doctrine in scripture, another on the historical aspects of it and another on the support of it by the early fathers.

I would refer you to them, if you don’t want to buy them, you can likely get them temporarily from a library.
 
Jolly_Joe said:
I don’t know that I’d want to bother here, the thing is it’s not just one verse, but sola Scriptura is a variety of truths summed up in that little phrase.

It’s a bit like the doctrine of the Trinity, you can’t just take one little verse and say there it is. So you go through and show the three persons and show that each person is God and there is one God and really to do it rightly, well, it takes a fair amount of work.

And what tends to happen on discussion forum is just derailment and confusion, because you really can’t do a good job of showing it in one or two posts. Plus the fact that many thing sola Scriptura means everything is in the bible.

But in any case, if you are actually interested, there is a three volume set that does a fair job. You can see it at christiantruth.com/books.html

It’s the three volume Holy Scripture the Ground and Pillar of our Faith You get a volume on the doctrine in scripture, another on the historical aspects of it and another on the support of it by the early fathers.

I would refer you to them, if you don’t want to buy them, you can likely get them temporarily from a library.
Click to expand...
Not looking for a little scripture here and a little scripture there. I’m looking for someone who believes in the doctrine to put forth their point of view as to why its a valid doctrine. Scripture is a part of the equation… so is history… so is logic.

If you can sum up your belief in Sola Scriptura for me in a concise argument, that would be awesome… Thanks.
  • Michael
 
teak421 said:
Not looking for a little scripture here and a little scripture there. I’m looking for someone who believes in the doctrine to put forth their point of view as to why its a valid doctrine. Scripture is a part of the equation… so is history… so is logic.

If you can sum up your belief in Sola Scriptura for me in a concise argument, that would be awesome… Thanks.
  • Michael
Click to expand...
I don’t think you will get any takers on this simply because what you are asking is not possible. Sola Scriptura is unsupportable in Scripture, logic, and history. An argument for Sola Scriptura is complex, contradictory, and convoluted, at its simplest.
 
RWMorris said:
I don’t think you will get any takers on this simply because what you are asking is not possible. Sola Scriptura is unsupportable in Scripture, logic, and history. An argument for Sola Scriptura is complex, contradictory, and convoluted, at its simplest.
Click to expand...
Perhaps… But, I would still love to hear how people arrived at their position. Sola Scriptura is for foundational its beyond belief and I would think that Protestants would understand their position… With that said, I was a Protestant for 20 years and you know, I never gave it much thought. And, I loved to agrue with other folks never with a Catholic though, odd.

I went to one web site that quote an early Church father and you know, it was pretty good. But, upon further research, that same UCF said something that supported Tradition. So, Sola Scriptura is SCRIPTURE ONLY, so if an UCF sites one piece of Tradition, that person must be removed from the Protestants web site as a source UCF.

I wrote an email saying its sloppy to only quote the stuff that supports your doctrine… I know, we’re all probaly guilty of that, but…

Happy Friday.
  • Michael
PS: sorry for the rambling, didn’t really say anything…
 
teak421 said:
Perhaps… But, I would still love to hear how people arrived at their position …
Click to expand...
I was Protestant, too, and never gave it much thought. But let me say this. I believe salvation is possible for those that believe in Sola Scriptura. Scripture is clear enough to support such a contention. But the complete Truth remains hidden. The complete Truth may be arrived at through the study of Scripture, but the path is rugged, and full of difficulties. One of the main difficulties is cultural. Translations are always devoid of cultural context, and without that context, the true meaning of the text is vague at best.

Most of us don’t speak Greek, Latin, or Hebrew, and don’t have access to original transcripts. We rely on our English translations of the Scriptures. So, in many ways, we are as illiterate as most of the first century Christians were, and we are in dire need of assistance in determining what many of the Scriptures mean.

Tradition is a powerful tool for overcoming the shortcomings of translations.
 
teak421 said:
I went to one web site that quote an early Church father and you know, it was pretty good. But, upon further research, that same UCF said something that supported Tradition. So, Sola Scriptura is SCRIPTURE ONLY, so if an UCF sites one piece of Tradition, that person must be removed from the Protestants web site as a source UCF.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you define sola scriptura. Scripture is the sole infallible record of divine revelation and clearly contains all things necessary for salvation, either explicitly or by necessary implication. It is in this sense that most mainline Protestants define scripture alone. It does not exclude a place for tradition, but tradition is secondary to the scriptures and anything based on tradition is not necessary, even though it may be true. Defined this way there are clear indications of sola scriptura among the early church fathers, even though they may also refer to and use tradition.

I will provide a couple of examples.
In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.
Click to expand...
Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm
Now these things we say superficially, as to men not knowing the Scriptures. But our discourses would be unnecessary if you would believe and take heed to the divine word, for that would teach you all things.
Click to expand...
John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html
What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.
Click to expand...
John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

As for scriptural the most common example is:
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB)
Click to expand...
Now I am familiar with the Catholic arguments with respect to this passage, such as it refers only to the Old Testament and that it doesn’t say scripture is sufficient only profitable. I will quote from John Chrysostom’s explanation of it.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child you have known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Click to expand...
"For doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
Click to expand...
“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
Click to expand...
“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.”
Click to expand...
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm
 
teak421 said:
Perhaps… But, I would still love to hear how people arrived at their position. Sola Scriptura is for foundational its beyond belief and I would think that Protestants would understand their position… With that said, I was a Protestant for 20 years and you know, I never gave it much thought. And, I loved to agrue with other folks never with a Catholic though, odd.

I went to one web site that quote an early Church father and you know, it was pretty good. But, upon further research, that same UCF said something that supported Tradition. So, Sola Scriptura is SCRIPTURE ONLY, so if an UCF sites one piece of Tradition, that person must be removed from the Protestants web site as a source UCF.

I wrote an email saying its sloppy to only quote the stuff that supports your doctrine… I know, we’re all probaly guilty of that, but…

Happy Friday.
  • Michael
PS: sorry for the rambling, didn’t really say anything…
Click to expand...
I don’t think you were rambling, and I liked visiting your site. Thanks.
 
Jolly_Joe said:
I don’t know that I’d want to bother here, the thing is it’s not just one verse, but sola Scriptura is a variety of truths summed up in that little phrase.

It’s a bit like the doctrine of the Trinity, you can’t just take one little verse and say there it is. So you go through and show the three persons and show that each person is God and there is one God and really to do it rightly, well, it takes a fair amount of work.

And what tends to happen on discussion forum is just derailment and confusion, because you really can’t do a good job of showing it in one or two posts. Plus the fact that many thing sola Scriptura means everything is in the bible.

But in any case, if you are actually interested, there is a three volume set that does a fair job. You can see it at christiantruth.com/books.html

It’s the three volume Holy Scripture the Ground and Pillar of our Faith You get a volume on the doctrine in scripture, another on the historical aspects of it and another on the support of it by the early fathers.

I would refer you to them, if you don’t want to buy them, you can likely get them temporarily from a library.
Click to expand...
I have found very few whom adhere to Sola Scriptura who will allow discussion of tradition and the teachings of the Church Fathers in the debate. The reason is there is no mention of Sola Scriptura in the History of Christainity until the so called “Reformation”. When a brave soul does quote a Church Father supposedly supporting Sola Scriptura they inavaribly post the same handful of quotes that merely show that the Church fathers aknoweldged the importance of Scripture.
 
I’m not affiliated with any denomination or church but I was a staunch protestant for many years. And I’m certainly not a defender of Sola Scriptura.

The net result of Sola Scriptura is the belief that scripture (Bible) is infallible and EQUAL to God. It is this doctrine (and others) that caused me to back away from protestant church without discarding my faith in Christ, and life through him.

The danger and damage in such a dogma is the easy manipulation of the faithful. If the Bible is considered to be the equal to God himself then “proof texting” becomes the obvious fuel of false doctrine.

If a pastor or leader wants to take his followers a certain direction, all he has to do is find the translation and passage that best supports his particular position and it becomes “thus says the Lord”!

Although such gullibility would be denied by good and well meaning people, this is exactly how the many and diversified protestant denomination developed.

However, isn’t this dogma similar to the Catholic position on the Church and papal leadership?😊
 
SyCarl said:
Defined this way there are clear indications of sola scriptura among the early church fathers, even though they may also refer to and use tradition.

I will provide a couple of examples…
Click to expand...
These are the usual out of context ECF quotes that Protestants often provide. Not out of context in the paragraphs in which they appear, of course (you provided some of those, thank you), but in the context of the *entire corpus *of the writings of that particular ECF. If you look at the entire writings of these Fathers, it becomes manifestly clear that, even though, they have a high view of Scripture (as do Catholics today), they also had just a high view of Sacred Tradition and the necessity of submitting to the teaching authority of the Church.

Just like it is not adequate to proof-text Scripture, but to look at the whole of Scripture to see what a certain text means in context, quotes from the ECFs must be taken in the context of the entire corpus of their writings.
 
RWMorris said:
I was Protestant, too, and never gave it much thought. But let me say this. I believe salvation is possible for those that believe in Sola Scriptura. Scripture is clear enough to support such a contention. But the complete Truth remains hidden. The complete Truth may be arrived at through the study of Scripture, but the path is rugged, and full of difficulties. One of the main difficulties is cultural. Translations are always devoid of cultural context, and without that context, the true meaning of the text is vague at best.

Most of us don’t speak Greek, Latin, or Hebrew, and don’t have access to original transcripts. We rely on our English translations of the Scriptures. So, in many ways, we are as illiterate as most of the first century Christians were, and we are in dire need of assistance in determining what many of the Scriptures mean.

Tradition is a powerful tool for overcoming the shortcomings of translations.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100% with you on that… I know a ton of awesome people who believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and are heading to heaven. (at least from their outward signs).
  • Michael
 
Mhz said:
I’m not affiliated with any denomination or church but I was a staunch protestant for many years. And I’m certainly not a defender of Sola Scriptura.

The net result of Sola Scriptura is the belief that scripture (Bible) is infallible and EQUAL to God. It is this doctrine (and others) that caused me to back away from protestant church without discarding my faith in Christ, and life through him.

The danger and damage in such a dogma is the easy manipulation of the faithful. If the Bible is considered to be the equal to God himself then “proof texting” becomes the obvious fuel of false doctrine.

If a pastor or leader wants to take his followers a certain direction, all he has to do is find the translation and passage that best supports his particular position and it becomes “thus says the Lord”!

Although such gullibility would be denied by good and well meaning people, this is exactly how the many and diversified protestant denomination developed.

However, isn’t this dogma similar to the Catholic position on the Church and papal leadership?😊
Click to expand...
Morning… What Dogma do you follow? If you are still a follower of Christ, you must have some doctrine that restricts your actions and forms your beliefs. How did you arrive at it?

Thanks!
  • Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top