SPLIT: Does the Bible teach Sola Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Drawmack said:
That has nothing to do with this thread.
Click to expand...
Really?

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

This has nothing to do with the explosive growth in the number of Protestant denominations? 😛

Okay, how about these:

Did Jesus promise to build more than one Church?

Does doctrine matter in the Church of Christ?

Are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable in the Church of Christ?

Is the Church a visible community or a spiritual communion of all believers regardless of doctrine or creed?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?
Click to expand...
Before we address this could you please answer two questions for me. 1) What was the Church’s purposes in defining a closed Canon? 2) In light of your answer to the first question, what purpose was served by leaving information that is necessary for Salvation out of said Canon?
 
To answer the question in the thread title. The Bible teaches that we should follow tradition in written and oral form. The Bible also teaches that it cannot be the source of confusion. So no, the Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura. The word Bible isn’t even in the Bible.
Drawmack said:
  1. What was the Church’s purposes in defining a closed Canon?
Click to expand...
Because the Protestants were removing books from the Bible. Additionally, the Church worried that if the Protestants would take books out; that somewhere along the line someone would try to add invalid ones in.
Drawmack said:
  1. In light of your answer to the first question, what purpose was served by leaving information that is necessary for Salvation out of said Canon?
Click to expand...
The information necessary for salvation is in the canonized Bible. The Catholic Church didn’t remove anything. The obscure writings (ie. Gospel of Thomas) that didn’t make the canonized Bible were not in it from the beginning.
 
Drawmack said:
Before we address this could you please answer two questions for me. 1) What was the Church’s purposes in defining a closed Canon?
Click to expand...
I have recently learned of an argument by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin which suggests that Trent defined the canon but did not close it.

It is my understanding that Trent defined the canon in response to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonical books.
  1. In light of your answer to the first question, what purpose was served by leaving information that is necessary for Salvation out of said Canon?
Click to expand...
It is not my opinion that anything necessary for salvation was left out of the canon of the Bible as defined by Trent. The Bible is materially - though not formally - sufficient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top