- This topic has 1 reply, 11 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Here is my article on Sola Scriptura:
Gospel Light Ministries
Article #43 – Sola Scriptura is indeed Biblical
Sola Scriptura is indeed Biblical While looking over many apologetics, I’ve seen a big case of people telling me that I am wrong when I believe in the Bible alone teaching. So as usual, let’s see if it is or isn’t meant to be or are we to believe that traditions (with the big “T” or little “t”) matters or not.
The first thing that they say is that the words “the Bible alone” is not found in Scripture and they are right. But things like the Trinity are never by word mentioned, yet we see the Trinity is taught and is very Biblical. So this cannot be used as an argument because there are many reasons to which it clearly teaches that it’s very Biblical to use Scriptures as the authoritative item when seeking answers to our problems. Doesn’t Jesus, Himself, tell us this when He said that, “…It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God?” (Luke 4:4)
So then they ask “where” or “what verse” do we refer to when we say that the Bible is authoritative? One of the most accepted verses for the Bible-only people to quote, is found in 2 Timothy 3:15, “… And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” Notice it says that it can make one wise unto salvation and as a result it’ll make one “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” This is a pretty conclusive verse and doesn’t leave room for much doubt, does it? The doubter would respond by suggesting that their verse says “it is profitable” but doesn’t say “the only profitable” thing. Though it’ll make me thoroughly furnished for all good works, they get hung up on thinking that it’ll only be profitable.
So we continue with the next train of thought as they include 3 more arguments such as keeping our verses in context. Verse fourteen mentions, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” Whatever the people had learnt at this point, since there was no Bible at that time, either had to be handed down by Paul’s “oral” teachings, in other words traditionally, not to mention that the only Scriptures available to Paul were the Old Testament scriptures. “Thus the traditions demand equal study” they would tell us. But we should not misunderstand this as it can be easily deceiving. It may be true that there was no actual Bible, but the “oral” teachings were the same as the written down teachings and these were the traditions that Paul handed down. Paul wasn’t orally teaching a different “gospel” then what ended up in the written form. The same goes as far as the “traditions” that Paul refers to. These are also found in the Bible so that we can know what are or aren’t Biblical. He doesn’t say “including traditions” that are accumulated over the future years nor is he referring to traditions that would go against Scriptures. Besides this, the Bible was, to some extent, in written form as letters to the churches. They weren’t yet put together in a book form, but they were out there.
The Old Testament that Paul had was either the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint with the Greek Septuagint having the Deutercanonical Books, however, from my studies I find that these books are NOT inspired. Despite its historical value, it promotes questionable ethics, fanciful legends, and doctrine that contradicts Scripture. They are simply letters of edification and encouragement, written by ordinary Christians, they do not profess apostolic wisdom and authority. The Catholic Church did declare these as authoritative and canonical Scriptures, but not until April 8, 1546 and then to fight against the ongoing Reformation. I’ll write more on the Deutercanonical Books in a future article.
The Bible gives us many verses to back the Sola Scriptura belief, besides the already mentioned 2 Timothy verses. Jesus, for instance, many times quotes Scriptures to explain something or to set a standard or policy of the way things ought to be. In fact Jesus even told us how important His Word is when He said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” (Mark 13:31) and phrases that mention about that, “Scriptures might be fulfilled.” (Matthew 17:12) Elsewhere the Bible tells us that, “…it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;” (Romans 1:16) that, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17) and that, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” (1 Peter 2:2) It tells us also that, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psalm 119:105) and Jesus even once told us, “…If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31,32) The Bible also mentions that we should not to add or subtract from the Bible in the last chapter of Revelation.
So now we come to the interpretation aspect of Scriptures and how we aren’t to do it as Peter told us, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:20) “This is why we have 36000 different religious sects” is what they tell us. That may be true, but is the Catholic faith any different or just another one of the different sects? Therefore the solution is to stick to the Scriptures to compare which one is truthful. This much we do know, that the Scriptures were not thought up by the writers themselves, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) We are each given the responsibility of seeking first the Kingdom of God and to, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Paul told us, “… that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,” (1 Corinthians 4:6) and we should, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” (Ephesians 6:17)
In closing I ask you this question, “If Scriptures are this efficient, truthful and thorough” what is it that you doubt about Sola Scriptura?” If it is the Church that we are told is to be the authority, we still need to be good Bereans and to check that they are following the Word as well, for no magesterium is above God’s ways either. Clearly Christ’s Church follows His Word as the authoritative source alone for anything else is by man! For the record, we thus declare that Sola Scriptura is very, very Biblical. How we got the existing Bible as it is today and information on the Deutercanonical Books will be covered in future articles. For now we can rest assured that Jesus gave us the Bible as a book of instructions, so let us trust it as being sufficient and complete as it is meant to be.
I read this already and I am still not convinced in sola scriptura. Peace. NEXT…..
John 20:29 tells us –
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
What is it that you are not convinced about? Sola Scriptura is God’s way
to men, what possibly can man add to this?[quote:26krvuuv]What is it that you are not convinced about? Sola Scriptura is God’s way
to men, what possibly can man add to this?[/quote:26krvuuv]
The Bible itself is full of stories of God communicating through networks of other people long before and while He communicates through sacred writings. Sola Scriptura isn’t even biblical.
Yes Jon but even scriptures tell us that:
[color=darkred:1jyrvrja][b:1jyrvrja][quote:1jyrvrja]
John1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Hebrews 1:1-3 – 1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power[/quote:1jyrvrja][/b:1jyrvrja][/color:1jyrvrja],we are told not to add to the Scriptures too!
So I again ask you what your problem is in believing Sola Scriptura?
John 1:1 is talking about Jesus. Jesus is the living Word. He is the word of God incarnate. It’s not talking about the Bible (which didn’t even exist in its entirety when that was written).
And Hebrews 1:1-3 has nothing do with Scripture. Again, it’s referring to Jesus, not a set of written books.
Besides, quoting the Bible to validate the authenticity of the Bible or prove that we should listen to the Bible alone is a circular argument and makes no sense. Plenty of other texts call themselves sacred and holy writings. What sets them apart from the Bible in that respect? Nothing. There must be some outside source that also has authority to declare the Bible to be what we believe it is. People must have been in charge of that since we all know the Bible didn’t drop from the sky and a finished product, leather bound with gold-edged paper.
For example, Ron. If I told you I was Miss America, would you believe me? Even if you denied it and I insisted does that make me truly Miss America? No, we know it doesn’t. There is a panel of judges that declares who miss America truly is just like Jesus selected 12 Apostles to shephard his flock after he was crucified. Jesus didn’t tell everyone to follow a book and listen only to them. He groomed people to preach the good news and only from those experiences and the experiences of the followers of the Apostles did the Scriptures (NT) come.
Jon old buddy, you say:
[quote:gbszd294]John 1:1 is talking about Jesus. Jesus is the living Word. He is the word of God incarnate. It’s not talking about the Bible (which didn’t even exist in its entirety when that was written).And Hebrews 1:1-3 has nothing do with Scripture. Again, it’s referring to Jesus, not a set of written books. [/quote:gbszd294]
Aren’t they saying that Jesus is the word – if it is the word and the word became flesh – then it must be believable for even Peter said that “All of Scripture is inspired but not by man”
Then you ask:[quote:gbszd294]
Besides, quoting the Bible to validate the authenticity of the Bible or prove that we should listen to the Bible alone is a circular argument and makes no sense. Plenty of other texts call themselves sacred and holy writings. What sets them apart from the Bible in that respect? Nothing. There must be some outside source that also has authority to declare the Bible to be what we believe it is. People must have been in charge of that since we all know the Bible didn’t drop from the sky and a finished product, leather bound with gold-edged paper. [/quote:gbszd294]What other book is complete 100% accurate in all of the smallest details?
What other auther came back from the dead?
What other book is 100% faultless?These are just a few reasons to accept it as t is meant to be – alone and above all details, reasons or any human logic, even the perception of cicular reasoning my friend! You’ve been deceived by your imposter church! (no I am not bashing you, it is a fact)
Wow Ron, thanks for being disrespectful. You outdid yourself again. Congratulations.
WHAT ???
Just because I said the way things are, is that being disrespectful?
I suppose you’d rather that I quit trying to show you the truth
and a little more respect? Naw! The disciples must have rattled some
people as well to be put to death. Believe me, I didn’t intentionally
say anything out of disrespect, but some things have to be told for
anyone to know what I’m trying to show, and besides I didn’t come here
to win any honors. Maybe I said something that wasn’t acceptable, but it is the truth and that is the important point.
:rolleyes:
That article was unconvincing even by Protestant standards.
Equating “Jesus” with “Bible” is incredibly pathetic. “The Word” does not refer to the Bible, which was only compiled in the 4th century by the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Tell me Ron. What did a Christian living in 60 A.D. do? Seeing as the “Bible” didn’t exist and much of it wasn’t even written, they were pretty much ruined weren’t they?
And for the almost millenium and a half before the printing press was invented (and even for centuries after that) the Bible was not even available to most (assuming they could read, and most couldn’t), so how could they be saved? Oh that’s right, the Church taught them how.
And 2 Tim 3:16-17 is useless for your purposes. Not only does it never say the Bible is sufficient for our needs, it is also referring to the OLD Testament, since that was all that was written at the time. Plus, you never defined who a “man of God” happens to be. And lastly, Paul says they are ready for all good works, but you don’t even think good works are useful!
So basically, you fail an all counts.
Uncertaindrummer has these little messages to me:
[quote:2vxsi5st]That article was unconvincing even by Protestant standards.[/quote:2vxsi5st]
That doesn’t surprise me for a number of reasons: you being a Catholic don’t believe in Sola Scriptura either (the Bible as the authority) so why would my article impress you? The Bible tells us this as well. I know that my articles are legitimate because I have several people including a pastor look them over BEFORE I ever send them in for accuracy
” title=”Smile” />
[quote:2vxsi5st]
Equating “Jesus” with “Bible” is incredibly pathetic. “The Word” does not refer to the Bible, which was only compiled in the 4th century by the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Tell me Ron. What did a Christian living in 60 A.D. do? Seeing as the “Bible” didn’t exist and much of it wasn’t even written, they were pretty much ruined weren’t they? [/quote:2vxsi5st]The Word is/are the teachings of Jesus Christ of which the Bible is His Book for us. Hebrews tells us that He used prophets in the past so how God use to get information to us has greatly improved, wouldn’t you say?
All of the writtenings of Scriptures were before 100 AD. so that those that maybe were somewhat limited in hearing the message even before a “bible” would do so. How they did it I don’t and can’t say but regardless, Scriptuures does say in Romans 1 that no one has an excuse for not believing. Aren’t you glad we now have the Bible?[quote:2vxsi5st]
And for the almost millenium and a half before the printing press was invented (and even for centuries after that) the Bible was not even available to most (assuming they could read, and most couldn’t), so how could they be saved? Oh that’s right, the Church taught them how. [/quote:2vxsi5st]
The Church isn’t Roman Catholicism either with all of your unbiblical practices my friend[quote:2vxsi5st]And 2 Tim 3:16-17 is useless for your purposes. Not only does it never say the Bible is sufficient for our needs, it is also referring to the OLD Testament, since that was all that was written at the time. [/quote:2vxsi5st]
It tells me it is — try reading out of a New King James once. By the way, since you say it isn’t sufficent, care to tell me what you think it lacks?[quote:2vxsi5st]Plus, you never defined who a “man of God” happens to be. [/quote:2vxsi5st]
A Born-again Believer would be a “man of God”
[quote:2vxsi5st]
And lastly, Paul says they are ready for all good works, but you don’t even think good works are useful! [/quote:2vxsi5st]Paull doesn’t say good works get you saved but that by faith in what Jesus did at Calvary saves us so we now can do good works… keep your bible in context. (as your church people like to tell me)
[quote:2vxsi5st]So basically, you fail an all counts.[/quote:2vxsi5st]
Oh you mean like your predictions on baseball at your ranting address?
You don’t do very well at that either!” title=”Very Happy” />
[quote:2yawz0se]Uncertaindrummer has these little messages to me:
That doesn’t surprise me for a number of reasons: you being a Catholic don’t believe in Sola Scriptura either (the Bible as the authority) so why would my article impress you? The Bible tells us this as well. I know that my articles are legitimate because I have several people including a pastor look them over BEFORE I ever send them in for accuracy
” title=”Smile” />
[/quote:2yawz0se]Few points here: If you don’t expect me to be convinced, what’s the point? You don’t need to preach to the choir. You already believe it.
Second, you DON’T know they are legitimate. Your pastor is no authority. He is every bit as fallible as everyone else.
[quote:2yawz0se]The Word is/are the teachings of Jesus Christ of which the Bible is His Book for us. [/quote:2yawz0se]
Wrong again. The Word *is* Jesus, not His teachings. Also, you just try to throw that “the Bible is His book for us” in there, but you have no reason for believing that. He never even MENTIONED the Bible. He talked about the Old Testament Scriptures, but that hardly serves your purposes.
[quote:2yawz0se]Hebrews tells us that He used prophets in the past so how God use to get information to us has greatly improved, wouldn’t you say?
All of the writtenings of Scriptures were before 100 AD. so that those that maybe were somewhat limited in hearing the message even before a “bible” would do so. How they did it I don’t and can’t say but regardless, Scriptuures does say in Romans 1 that no one has an excuse for not believing. Aren’t you glad we now have the Bible?[/quote:2yawz0se]So you don’t even *know* what a first century Christian would do? Ron, you are unbelievable. Talk about lack of reason.
[quote:2yawz0se]The Church isn’t Roman Catholicism either with all of your unbiblical practices my friend[/quote:2yawz0se]
You haven’t even shown why we need to believe in the Bible, much less how the Church is teaching unbiblical things (a category which Sola Scriptura would fall into by the way). Regardless, you are simply dodging questions to which you have no answer. A Christian in the 8th century relied on the Church, not a book he didn’t own and couldn’t read.
[quote:2yawz0se]It tells me it is — try reading out of a New King James once. By the way, since you say it isn’t sufficent, care to tell me what you think it lacks?[/quote:2yawz0se]
So then your position is that the OT is all we need? Okay, glad we got that cleared up! For a second there I thought you meant we needed the New Testament as well! Silly me.
As for what the Bible lacks; It lacks an interpreter. No book interprets itself. Period.
[quote:2yawz0se]A Born-again Believer would be a “man of God”[/quote:2yawz0se]
:rolleyes: So then only those who are saved can read the Bible and learn how to be saved. Seems like a useless book to me.
[quote:2yawz0se]Paull doesn’t say good works get you saved but that by faith in what Jesus did at Calvary saves us so we now can do good works… keep your bible in context. (as your church people like to tell me)
[/quote:2yawz0se]I am not talking about that. I’m talking about 2 Tim 3:16-17 where he says the OLD Testament is *useful* for the [i:2yawz0se]man of God[/i:2yawz0se] to do [b:2yawz0se]good works[/b:2yawz0se].
[quote:2yawz0se]
Oh you mean like your predictions on baseball at your ranting address?
You don’t do very well at that either!” title=”Very Happy” />[/quote:2yawz0se]First off, no, I didn’t predict baseball that well this year, but secondly, dude those were joke predictions. You did see that the Athletics lost to the Twins… and then I had them losing to the Yankees, right? It was supposed to be funny that I had the A’s losing twice. Apparently you missed it, heh.
Besides, my predictions (as I explain in a later rant) always end up going along rooting lines, and not my brain. For instance, I predict the Giants will win the Super Bowl. Not so much because I think they will, but because I want them to.
Uncertaindrummer Posted just a few points worth answering:
[quote:2drhz6s7]Second, you DON’T know they are legitimate. Your pastor is no authority. He is every bit as fallible as everyone else. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
Wrong on two points- I do know, you are the one who doesn’t have a clue. Maybe someday you will look for yourself to see what the Lord has in the Bible, but then again your own magestirium says you can’t know!
And secondly, you don’t even know who my pastor is or what he believes, but you seem to know how fallible he is? Sounds like you’re drumming needs a tune-up! But for the record, he is fallible, just as your magestirium people are, so what is your point?[quote:2drhz6s7]Wrong again. The Word *is* Jesus, not His teachings. Also, you just try to throw that “the Bible is His book for us” in there, but you have no reason for believing that. He never even MENTIONED the Bible. He talked about the Old Testament Scriptures, but that hardly serves your purposes. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
Seeing you don’t know how to interpret, this comment from you means nothing…..[quote:2drhz6s7]So you don’t even *know* what a first century Christian would do? Ron, you are unbelievable. Talk about lack of reason. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
Well if they are truly Christian, They would believe in what Jesus taught.
True Christianity hasn’t Changed.[quote:2drhz6s7]You haven’t even shown why we need to believe in the Bible, much less how the Church is teaching unbiblical things (a category which Sola Scriptura would fall into by the way). Regardless, you are simply dodging questions to which you have no answer. A Christian in the 8th century relied on the Church, not a book he didn’t own and couldn’t read. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
Yes as even in Paul’s letter to Timothy in the first century, he warns people of deceptions, however since Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, we can know some in every century learnt the truth to this day!
” title=”Wink” />[quote:2drhz6s7]
So then your position is that the OT is all we need? Okay, glad we got that cleared up! For a second there I thought you meant we needed the New Testament as well! Silly me. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
Hey silly you, I don’t recall ever saying that, but if one had only the old Testament – which also points to Jesus as He said in Luke 24:27 – [color=darkred:2drhz6s7][b:2drhz6s7]And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.[/b:2drhz6s7][/color:2drhz6s7] then you would still have enought to know.
[quote:2drhz6s7]
As for what the Bible lacks; It lacks an interpreter. No book interprets itself. Period. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
Opening the Book up would help you a lot.[quote:2drhz6s7]
So then only those who are saved can read the Bible and learn how to be saved. Seems like a useless book to me. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
From your answers, you have me convinced that’s certainly how you do feel.[quote:2drhz6s7]
I am not talking about that. I’m talking about 2 Tim 3:16-17 where he says the OLD Testament is *useful* for the man of God to do good works. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
the old and new – both are relevant to today – I think you are adding to Scriptures for it says: 16 [b:2drhz6s7][color=darkred:2drhz6s7]All[/color:2drhz6s7] [/b:2drhz6s7][color=darkred:2drhz6s7]Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work[/color:2drhz6s7][quote:2drhz6s7]First off, no, I didn’t predict baseball that well this year, but secondly, dude those were joke predictions. You did see that the Athletics lost to the Twins… and then I had them losing to the Yankees, right? It was supposed to be funny that I had the A’s losing twice. Apparently you missed it, heh. [/quote:2drhz6s7]
Actually who really cares about baseball aside from a little entertainment.
[color=darkred:ofqt2v7b]This should be fun, or very disappointing.[/color:ofqt2v7b]
[color=green:gql6ypav]I don’t waste my time. When I see a post by Ron I keep scrolling.[/color:gql6ypav]
[quote:1kjb7h7z][color=green:1kjb7h7z]I don’t waste my time. When I see a post by Ron I keep scrolling.[/color:1kjb7h7z][/quote:1kjb7h7z]
Ouch… that’s a bit of a slam.
[color=green:c37yfipo]BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!!![/color:c37yfipo]
Sola scriptura (Latin for scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Although there is no agreed-upon technical definition among Protestants, it generally meant that Scripture is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals. The key implication of the slogan is that interpretations of how to understand and apply Scripture would not bear the same authority as Scripture itself, and that therefore the individual Christian is subject not to the interpretations of any ecclesiastical authority but only to his own interpretation. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Roman Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible’s authority and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority in addition to the Bible. Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Prima scriptura, which holds that the Bible is the primary source of doctrine, but that understanding can be improved by reference to other sources.
and the Bible is THE determiner for find out if a certain church that claims itself to be –
[quote:20pdmpwb]the interpretations of any ecclesiastical authority [/quote:20pdmpwb]
and the Spirit helps us find this out that their claims don’t match.
If you don’t think the Bible has THE authority, how or where do you go to determine this when there are so many different religions Mr. Weathers with so many that claim to be “the true church.”
I’ll stick to His Word……
” title=”Smile” />
” title=”Very Happy” />
” title=”Wink” />- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.