Sola Scripura - Does it support itself?

[twb1621]

Some points worthy to be considered in regard to sola scriptura.

Is Sola Scriptura reasonable or is it a selective method to follow what one can believe? If it were reasonable, the following could easily be addressed and refuted with credible support from scripture.

Let’s consider the viability of sola scriptura; we know scripture tells us Jesus made a covenant to never abandon His Church, that she would never fall and that she would always be guided by the Holy Spirit until His return. We also know according to scripture that in all things Jesus maintains primacy and that by the Father’s will, all things He shall reconcile to Himself. He even went as far as to warn us of the deceit and corruption that would arise at times both from outside and within His Church including the distortion of His Word and the deception of the many, yet asks for perseverance.

So what it comes down to is this; based on the principles of sola scriptura who has in the past or does possess the righteousness to question the commitment and ability of our Lord to oversee the Church He founded with His blood, and so love her in her devotion and purge her of her corruption as, how and when He determines appropriate to Himself?

Has Our Lord not always had the authority to reconcile all things in heaven and on earth to Himself according to His and our Father in Heaven? Does man know better than God and can man do better than God overseeing His own Church for man to believe his own intervention is required to “reestablish” and modify church precepts? Can any man explain how the existence of so many “Christian” faiths is not a testament to man’s weakness of faith and trust in our Savior’s abilities to oversee His Church of which He has always been the High Priest?

No where in Scripture does it say the Church Jesus founded would end, become corrupt and fail or be reestablished or revised at any time or by any man before His return. Just the opposite is true. God proclaims through scripture everything but these things will occur. Yet many have been mislead into accepting the personal beliefs and disbeliefs of individual men and women who did not have the faith or knowledge to accept the complete teachings of our Lord, establishing their own faiths through their adopted beliefs based on individual interpretations.

The final question; if in fact the Catholic Church was not the true Church founded by Jesus as some were lead to believe, one would have to know which Faith was the True Faith. After all, there must be one (and only one) because the Bible attests to it and to the fact it must be visible, obvious, and is of only “one God, one faith, one body and one baptism”… So which one was established by Jesus through the Apostles and their successors and has the lineage in the teachings of scripture since His ministry without interruption as Jesus’ covenant attests AND has all the Characteristics to identify it Biblically?

 

[geekborj]

It is true that i’m telling the truth. Sola Scriptura being the final arbiter of spiritual truths as handed on by Jesus does not hold water. On the first place, one cannot simply use the same statement to prove the same. Sola Scriptura is a teaching that must be founded on a different thing!

Therefore, the very concept of Sola Scriptura calls for an independent authority that tells about the validity of sola scriptura. Who made it up, anyway? It’s a new concept in the Church and not ever reflects orthodox view.

Simply, one cannot support a building by itselft. Every building has a foundation. The Church built by Christ is founded on Him as the Cornerstone. Obviously, the Church is built with people not pages nor buildings. Hence, the first rock instituted by Christ himself is also a person – this person must be Kepha (St. Peter). Then follows the other Apostles, then the other disciples, the saints, martyrs, and the entire People of God. What else does Revelation describes?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Some points worthy to be considered in regard to sola scriptura.

Is Sola Scriptura reasonable or is it a selective method to follow what one can believe?

Is Sola Scriptura reasonable? Not for me.

The notion of sola scriptura implies that God’s plan was that the early churches the apostles labored to create, and gave their lives for, were simply to exist as a forum for the apostles to write letters to. After that, these congregations were to cease to exist as true churches, and the written residue they left behind was to be centuries later discovered and from this written residue the true faith was to be reconstructed.

Does that sound like God’s plan to you? Not to me.

But, for one who wants to believe what one selects to believe, maybe so.

 

[twb1621]

Is Sola Scriptura reasonable? Not for me.

The notion of sola scriptura implies that God’s plan was that the early churches the apostles labored to create, and gave their lives for, were simply to exist as a forum for the apostles to write letters to. After that, these congregations were to cease to exist as true churches, and the written residue they left behind was to be centuries later discovered and from this written residue the true faith was to be reconstructed.

Does that sound like God’s plan to you? Not to me.

But, for one who wants to believe what one selects to believe, maybe so.

There is real heart in your response and I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut as I do geekborj as well. It seems there has been no response by believers or promoters in sola scriptura. I pray the issues raised are given honest consideration by those who follow sola scriptura. For what reason can anyone justify taking the written gospels from there source, devote themselves to scripture but ignore the most fundamental covenant Jesus made with His Bride. How can anyone justify abandoning His Church making the implications that He is incapable of overseeing Her sufficiently and how can anyone justify their abandonment of His church for any periods of misconduct or corruption when He Himself made it clear He was fully aware these things would occur even asking our perseverance through faith and trust in Him? Sola scriptura is a virus that continues to spread through the separated body of Christianity and has proven itself as such thousands upon thousands of times.

 

[mackbrislawn]

There is real heart in your response and I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut as I do geekborj as well. It seems there has been no response by believers or promoters in sola scriptura. I pray the issues raised are given honest consideration by those who follow sola scriptura. For what reason can anyone justify taking the written gospels from there source, devote themselves to scripture but ignore the most fundamental covenant Jesus made with His Bride. How can anyone justify abandoning His Church making the implications that He is incapable of overseeing Her sufficiently and how can anyone justify their abandonment of His church for any periods of misconduct or corruption when He Himself made it clear He was fully aware these things would occur even asking our perseverance through faith and trust in Him? Sola scriptura is a virus that continues to spread through the separated body of Christianity and has proven itself as such thousands upon thousands of times.

Thanks, twb.

There have been strong arguments made for sola scriptura, but ultimately they don’t work, because at no time in the history of God’s people was scripture ever sola. Scripture was always used and understood within the context of God’s family. That is how God means for it to be used, by his children within the family.

We all know that individual verses within the bible have a context, and that context must be taken into account for the verse to be understood. This applies to the bible itself. The bible has a context, and ripped out of that context the bible will be misunderstood.

How then, can a person who is a non-Christian, not of the family of God, pick up a Gideon bible in the isolation of a motel room, and understand it properly? No, that doesn’t make sense to me.