Where Does Scripture State That It Is the *Sole* Rule of Faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mikijam said:
Your argument certainly makes sense if you were starting from a blank slate, with no beliefs whatsoever. If you were an alien (or perhaps Rene Descartes), and you knew nothing about what was authoritative, except that you saw that EVERYONE agreed the scriptures were inspired, then it would be logical to conclude that the Scriptures were the only thing you would trust.

It’s this “Whoa, whoa, let’s start from the beginning” attitude that causes many Protestant founded denominations from going only so far, and never allowing themselves the fullness of Truth. They stop at the bible because they can’t bring themselves to believe that Christ could ACTUALLY keep his Bride pure and holy all these years (Eph 5:25-27).

Well I am fairly sure you’re not an alien 😉 and I know you’re not Descartes. I guess it comes back to how you define the Church. Ironic for a discussion about Scripture, no?
Click to expand...
No Mikijam, I must disagree. I certainly believe that Jesus kept His bride holy all these years. However, in my mind that makes no guarentees for Tradition. More importantly though, and this goes back to what is probably the most fundamental difference between Catholics and non-Catholics, I don’t see the Church as an institution, I see it simply as everyone who believes in Jesus Christ. Whenever a Catholic refers to the Church, it is always really a reference to the leaders of the church, the magesterium, the pope, etc… It is a reference to the “institution” of the Church. However (and this is very off topic), Jesus didn’t start an institution, He started a way of life for believers. Almost every difference between Catholics and Non-Catholics, almost every difference in how we understand the Bible, comes from these two very different viewpoints.

So yes, Jesus did keep His bride Holy. But no, that does not mean He also protected Oral Tradition. In fact, there is no such guarentee in the Bible.
 
kaycee said:
Are definitions previously put forward, purposely being ignored? 🤷

Lets try it again. First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
Click to expand...
Your definition, yet again, does not explain why things such as the Westminster Confession exist in the Protestant faith. Is creed not a “rule of faith”, as it is used to separate denominations within Protestantism?

This is the question I continue to ask, and the question without answer.
 
Gosh, I leave for 24 hours and this post explodes. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to reply to everything, so I’m just going to make a general reply.

It seems to me that the continued argument is based entirely on two different sets of assumptions. These assumptions are the differences between Catholics and non-Catholics on the meaning of “Church”. The word means to completely different things to the two groups, and I think that is really the source of our disagreement. When Catholics say “church” or, “the Holy Spirit guiding the Church” what they are really refering to (especially in the latter example) is the leaders of the church, it’s priests, it’s Pope, the Magesterium, etc… Non-catholics simply understand “church” to mean all believers collectively.

So, when a Catholic here talks about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, they are mainly talking about the Holy Spirit guiding Church leaders. Then, since Tradition has been maintained largely by the magesterium, Catholics assume it to be protected because of course the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church (leaders), so it must also be protecting Church Tradition.

However, I see no evidence for this fact. For starters, “Church” doesn’t mean priests/pope/magesterium. It means everyone. Second, and I’ve made this point but no one has responded to it - NO WHERE does the Bible say that an Oral Tradition will be protected from corruption by the Holy Spirit. No Where! Now, according to Catholicism there are two legitimate rules of faith, scripture and tradition. Therefore, if the Bible makes no guarentees that an Oral Tradition will be protected, then the only thing left that could confirm this belief would be Oral Tradition! If the Bible doesn’t tell us that an inerrant Tradition will develop (and it doesn’t) then the only thing left to tell us about an inerrant Tradition would be that very Tradition! That is the very definition of circular. Let’s recap.
  1. The Bible makes no guarentees that an infallible tradition will develop
  2. The Holy Spirit protecting and guiding the church is in no way a guarentee that an infallible tradition will develop
  3. This leaves Tradition as the only potential way to verify Tradition, which is of course highly circular and therefore unacceptable.
  4. Since tradition doesn’t exist this leaves only once certain alternative from which to receive God’s Word - scripture. Since this is the only thing we have which we KNOW comes from God, it makes sense that it should be the primary Rule of Faith.
Finally, a couple last points. First, I find it really interesting that everytime I try to talk about Sola Scriptura on this forum, the first thing everyone does is try to throw doubt on the Bible. It seems to me like some of the people here are trying to cut off their nose to spite their face. I understand why you do it though - if the Bible could stand on it’s own authority, then there would be no need for the Church Magesterium. I would recommend everyone here learn a bit more about textual analysis. It’s a very exacting science, and using it is very clear what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t. Everyone do yourself a favor and go read “evidence that demands a verdict” It answers every single question asked here. In the meantime, read these articles:

carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
carm.org/evidence/textualexample.htm

Finally, I’d like to reiterate that no where does the Bible claim that an infallible tradition would develop, or that oral tradition would be protected by the Holy Spirit. Verses such as “hold fast to the teachings I pass on to you, whether by writing or word of mouth” are in no way a guarentee. That is a simple command, and a command is not a promise. Quite the opposite, actually, considering how bad we people usually are at doing what we are supposed to. So while there are a couple places in which Paul tells people to hold onto what he teaches, nowhere does the Bible promise that everyone WILL hold onto his teachings. It is certainly never promised that the Holy Spirit would protect Oral Tradition for 2 millenia. In fact, no where is it even implied.
 
DJim said:
I’ve just initiated an entire thread BEGGING for the Scripture quote in which "the Bible claims to be the SOLE and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church, and NO ONE has given me one.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, this is proof that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition.

I’m sure our resident Apolloses would have been strong in the scriptures enough to post 20 or 30 different verses which says the correct definition of sola scriptura.

But since they are strong in the scriptures, and they didn’t post it, IN ADDITION to there being searchable Bibles online which could have been searched in minutes to find these verses…

it is obviously those verses do not exist.

Therefore, sola scriptura is a man-made tradition.
 
Teflon93 said:
Your definition, yet again, does not explain why things such as the Westminster Confession exist in the Protestant faith. Is creed not a “rule of faith”, as it is used to separate denominations within Protestantism?

This is the question I continue to ask, and the question without answer.
Click to expand...
That’s not his definition. That is the definition of Alpha and Omega ministries, the magisterium whose authority he accepts in violation of sola scriptura!
 
BobCatholic said:
Congratulations, this is proof that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition.

I’m sure our resident Apolloses would have been strong in the scriptures enough to post 20 or 30 different verses which says the correct definition of sola scriptura.

But since they are strong in the scriptures, and they didn’t post it, IN ADDITION to there being searchable Bibles online which could have been searched in minutes to find these verses…

it is obviously those verses do not exist.

Therefore, sola scriptura is a man-made tradition.
Click to expand...
sigh As I have already made great lengths to demonstrate (and, as far as I’m concerned, no one has refuted) the Bible doesn’t have to state Sola Scriptura for Sola Scriptura to be true. Instead, it is YOUR job to prove that Tradition is valid. Am I supposed to accept Mormon Tradition because Sola Scriptura isn’t stated explicitely in the Bible? Am I supposed to accept the teachings of the Watchtower for the same reason? This seems like quite a logical fallacy to me. The Bible doesn’t state sola scriptura explicitely, therefore you assume it to be false, and therefore you assume Tradition to be true! That’s a lot of unjustified assumptions.
 
cmancone said:
sigh As I have already made great lengths to demonstrate (and, as far as I’m concerned, no one has refuted) the Bible doesn’t have to state Sola Scriptura for Sola Scriptura to be true. Instead, it is YOUR job to prove that Tradition is valid. Am I supposed to accept Mormon Tradition because Sola Scriptura isn’t stated explicitely in the Bible? Am I supposed to accept the teachings of the Watchtower for the same reason? This seems like quite a logical fallacy to me. The Bible doesn’t state sola scriptura explicitely, therefore you assume it to be false, and therefore you assume Tradition to be true! That’s a lot of unjustified assumptions.
Click to expand...
Speaking of unjustified assumptions, let’s break down the logic here.
  1. Sola scriptura is the belief that all that is necessary for salvation is contained within the Bible.
  2. Belief in sola scriptura is necessary for salvation according to many Protestant ecclesiastical communities.
  3. Sola scriptura is not itself found within the Bible.
You do see the problem, right?
 
Teflon93 said:
Speaking of unjustified assumptions, let’s break down the logic here.
  1. Sola scriptura is the belief that all that is necessary for salvation is contained within the Bible.
  2. Belief in sola scriptura is necessary for salvation according to many Protestant ecclesiastical communities.
  3. Sola scriptura is not itself found within the Bible.
You do see the problem, right?
Click to expand...
I’ve answered that question in my original posts. I suggest you read those. They explain it quite well.
 
cmancone said:
sigh As I have already made great lengths to demonstrate (and, as far as I’m concerned, no one has refuted) the Bible doesn’t have to state Sola Scriptura for Sola Scriptura to be true.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

If it does not, then it is an extra-scriptural tradition and that proves the authority of tradition, and nullifies sola scriptura.

Simple as this.

You claim tradition has no authority, yet you accept the extra-scriptural TRADITION of sola scriptura.

I told you, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
 
cmancone said:
I’ve answered that question in my original posts. I suggest you read those. They explain it quite well.
Click to expand...
I must have missed where you laid it out as clearly as I have the counterargument.

Perhaps you could point to post numbers or links?
 
DJim said:
Can you hear the sound of me pulling out my hair in grave disappointment, Kaycee?

I’ve just initiated an entire thread BEGGING for the Scripture quote in which "the Bible claims to be the SOLE and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church, and NO ONE has given me one.

Your quote above, when you said it the first time, is what started this thread. It has been demonstrated already by your silence that you actually don’t have any Scripture quotes to support that sentence, and now you brazenly return to using it as though this isn’t going to be noticed???
Click to expand...
I dont believe that was my quote. I did not start that thread. But i will supply some scripture before your hair is gone. 😉

The position I am defending certainly is what is taught in the Bible itself. For example, Deuteronomy 31:9 states: “Moses wrote down this law. . . .” Moses instructed the people by writing down the law and then ordering that it be read to them “so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law,” Deuteronomy 31:9, 12.

Moses declared to all Israel: “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,” Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.

Notice the clear elements in these passages:
  1. The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
  2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
  3. In this Word they can find life.
the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html
 
kaycee said:
I dont believe that was my quote. I did not start that thread. But i will supply some scripture before your hair is gone. 😉

The position I am defending certainly is what is taught in the Bible itself. For example, Deuteronomy 31:9 states: “Moses wrote down this law. . . .” Moses instructed the people by writing down the law and then ordering that it be read to them “so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law,” Deuteronomy 31:9, 12.

Moses declared to all Israel: “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,” Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.

Notice the clear elements in these passages:
  1. The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
  2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
  3. In this Word they can find life.
the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html
Click to expand...
Any luck finding the Book of Westminster?
 
kaycee said:
The position I am defending certainly is what is taught in the Bible itself. For example, Deuteronomy 31:9 states: “Moses wrote down this law. . . .” Moses instructed the people by writing down the law and then ordering that it be read to them “so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law,” Deuteronomy 31:9, 12.

Moses declared to all Israel: “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,” Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.

Notice the clear elements in these passages:
  1. The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
  2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
  3. In this Word they can find life.
Click to expand...
And nowhere does it say everything of the Word of God was written down in the 66 books of the Bible.

Yes. You can argue successfully that Sola Verbum Dei (Only the Word of God) is logical and reasonable.

But saying that sola scriptura is equally reaonsable is not true. As nowhere does it say that scripture is the totality of God’s Word.

Scripture is that part of God’s word that is written down. If it were the totality of God’s word, there would be no need for any magisteriums (which you cite below) or any interpretations (tradition - which you are selling us one right now)
the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html
Click to expand...
Why should one accept the magisterial authority of Dr. W. Robert Godfrey? Violation of sola scriptura.
 
Originally Posted by DJim
Can you hear the sound of me pulling out my hair in grave disappointment, Kaycee?
Click to expand...
I’ve just initiated an entire thread BEGGING for the Scripture quote in which "the Bible claims to be the SOLE and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church, and NO ONE has given me one.
Click to expand...
Joshua 1:7 "Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. ** 8"This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it;** for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.

Psalm 119: “I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on Thy statutes. I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey Thy precepts. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light for my path. The unfolding of Thy words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.”

1 Cor 4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, **“Do not go beyond what is written.” **Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
 
kaycee said:
Joshua 1:7 "Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. ** 8"This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth**, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Oral tradition as the word of God. Thanks for proving my point.
 
2 Timothy 3:12
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; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

You see, Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15). He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof (rebuking), correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16). Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17). So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, who will instruct them in myths rather than the truth of the Word (4:1-4)

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top