Sola scriptura

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In a recent thread that was slightly derail we got into a discussion of what Sola scriptura really meant.

I was always under the understanding that it meant that only the bible contains scripture and nothing else was scripture. NOw it appears that I might have had a mis-understaning and have opened this thread to try and understand what it really means. After all I might not have a problem with Sola scriptura if understood in it's proper context.

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Others that adhear to this don't seem to think this is what Sola scriptura means.

Come on my Christain friends what does it mean? Thanks.

If you do adhear to the above definitions from Wikipedia, tell me how that belief is justified by the bible when the bible never claims to be the sole source of scripture or revelation.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

I simply take it that they recognized their own generation was void of any divine authority. In a pre-Restoration context, it seemed like a good policy, but to call it a "doctrine"? That would make Martin Luther a divine leader.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

SO does any of our other Christian friends want to take a stab at it? I really am all ears and am quite interested in any compelling arguements. I guess if no wans to talk about it I guess that Sola Scriptura really does mean Bible alone or that scripture=bible.

[coolrok7]

SO does any of our other Christian friends want to take a stab at it? I really am all ears and am quite interested in any compelling arguements. I guess if no wans to talk about it I guess that Sola Scriptura really does mean Bible alone or that scripture=bible.

You are already answered in the other thread. Remember, Mormons view themselves as a modern version of the Qu'mran community in the following way (Jesus didn't choose either community):

There was great excitement when, in 1947, Bedouin shepherds discovered the first Dead Sea Scrolls preserved in large clay jars in Cave 1 at Qumran. Ten jars were ultimately found, but only two yielded documents. One contained three scrolls, . . .These three were later identified as a copy of the biblical book of Isaiah; a copy of the Rule of the Community, sometimes called the Manual of Discipline. . . and a commentary on the biblical book of Habakkuk.

Four additional scrolls were later found in the cave; . . .Hymn Scroll; a partially preserved copy of Isaiah; the War Scroll. . .and a collection of Genesis-type narratives called the Genisis Apocryphon. . . .

The idea of Restoration

Another reason for Latter-day Saint interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls community is the theme of apostasy and restoration found among both groups. The scrolls indicate that the Qumran sectarians regarded themselves as the true Israel surrounded by spiritual traitors and false brethren in a corrupt world. They possessed the true covenant that God had restored or renewed with them. They went off by themselves to establish the 'Community of the Renewed Covenant'. . . and to await the advent of two messiahs [*](a priestly Anointed One and a Davidic or political Anointed One) in desert country right next to a vast salt lake fed by a freshwater stream called the Jordan River. No wonder Latter-day Saints are interested in the documents of a people whose circumstances and geographical habitation parallel their own history. . . .

They continue to provide insights into the nature of the extinct community at Qumran. . . .However, with the exception of the copies of biblical books, there is no evidence to suggest the scrolls ought to be regarded in the same category as the standard works. . . .The scrolls have given to the world the oldest biblical manuscripts yet discovered, and they help us to understand the history of our modern version of the Bible. (The Ensign, Feb. 2006)

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its place?a religion that professed to be Jesus Christ?s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, 'having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.'. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiah's true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

3. There was a complete apostasy affecting both Catholic and Protestant churches. . . .2. There was a total apostasy affecting the Catholic and Protestant churches. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, pp.32, 58).

Salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. In him and in him alone is there redemption. But he works in his own way. God's way is not man's way. The Lord provided that salvation should come through his gospel functioning through his church, wherein are prophets and apostles 'for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.' (Ephesians 4:12). . .Is there such a church upon the earth? Until 1830 there was not. It had been lost through the falling away we have described in this pamphlet. (Which Church is Right pamphlet, p.17)

Jesus Himself selected the apostles, not the Qumran community, to be the bearers of His message of the good news of salvation to those who accept Him as the Messiah of Israel. While they can confirm certain Biblical teachings, it is not the Qumran community (or Mormonism for that matter) we are to look to for our doctrine.

You call us "friends"? The following is part of a past conversation I had with Kevin [Wayne] Graham from his Mormon Answers website (first my statement, then his response; this was from back in May of 1999):

When your Church teaches that what I believe as a Protestant Christian is 'pagan' and 'heretical' and that I'm wrong, my point back is to give a defense of both what I believe from scripture (the Bible) and what I have been told officially by members of the LDS Church.

In reference to the word 'some' Paul as you know wrote both 1&2 Timothy as well as 1&2 Thessalonians. The word apostasy in Thessalonians and some that would fall away in Timothy is speaking about the same thing. . .There will always be people falling away from the truth which will eventually culminate in the final delusion of the last anti-Christ (Paul identifies as the son of perdition)(there have been many anti-Christ's as John says), who will be destroyed at the appearing of Jesus in the clouds. The point being there was and always will be the truth as contained in the Bible, preserved by the Holy Spirit of God. . . .

Excellent post Roy, and I do agree with most of what you stated. You have made an interesting argument about the two epistles to Timothy, and I do appreciate this, since I have never heard this as a defense for 'some' apostasy. It is well noted! But I do have to say that the 'Falling away' passage never literally said 'Complete' either, and is perhaps one of the weaker scriptures used to defend the LDS position of a 'complete apostasy', although it is probably the most cited. . . .

Mormonism has its own version of "Sola Scriptura" in principle (which is what "Sola Scriptura" is in hermaneutics):

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us then the standard works. . . .When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, 'Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.' Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said, 'There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,' said he, 'when compared with the living oracles those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or man bearing the holy priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.' That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: 'Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.' (In Conference report, October 1897, pp.18-19). . .

To the angel of the church of Ephesus write, 'These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: 'I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name's sake and have not become weary.' (Revelation 2:1-3)

Church fathers are not the writers of "Scripture" from the first century or anyone else for that matter. Scripture (the Bible), is the "standard of judgment or the norm" as your own leaders attest to:

In fact, the New Testament contains. . .teachings. . .of. . .the Man of Galilee. This book, therefore will be our standard of judgment or the norm by which we measure the Gospel truths of all the dispensations. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.91)

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188)

Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 16:46)

Mormon so-called "Scripture" does not "stand the test"!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are already answered in the other thread. Remember, Mormons view themselves as a modern version of the Qu'mran community in the following way (Jesus didn't choose either community):

Jesus Himself selected the apostles, not the Qumran community, to be the bearers of His message of the good news of salvation to those who accept Him as the Messiah of Israel. While they can confirm certain Biblical teachings, it is not the Qumran community (or Mormonism for that matter) we are to look to for our doctrine.

You call us "friends"? The following is part of a past conversation I had with Kevin [Wayne] Graham from his Mormon Answers website (first my statement, then his response; this was from back in May of 1999):

Mormonism has its own version of "Sola Scriptura" in principle (which is what "Sola Scriptura" is in hermaneutics):

Church fathers are not the writers of "Scripture" from the first century or anyone else for that matter. Scripture (the Bible), is the "standard of judgment or the norm" as your own leaders attest to:

Mormon so-called "Scripture" does not "stand the test"!

I love how you have given I giant non answer you win. I wish you could tell me what you believe instead of trying to tell me what I beleive. I am quite confident that I know more about what I beleive than you do.

So what does Sola Scriptura mean to you accourding to your beliefs? That is all I am asking.

These rants of yours against my faith are getting really tiresome and annoying. So far you take the cake for giving the most consistant and biggest non answers on this board on any given subject.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The following verses from the New Testament, I think, provides an understanding of how I believe there is internal Biblical evidence for arriving at the understanding of Scritpure (Sola Scriptura) as the only authorized source of apostolically endorsed true doctrine. This would include the idea of an expanding but historically limited cannon (the NT over time being joined to the OT as the record of the fulfillment of prophecy and further instruction from Jesus and His apostles):

Jesus said to him, ?Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.? And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:29-30)

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, . . . (Acts 17:11-12a)

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)

And when this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. (Colossians 4:16)

I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren. (1 Thessalonians 5:27)

But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:13)

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:14-15)

Were is Sola Scrpitura in these verses of scripture defined as the bible alone? I take it you hold that view?

I make sure as best as I can to not violate the idea behind the term Exegesis, used in Biblical Hermeneutics, which is the idea of reading what is there in the Biblical text without doing Eisegesis, reading into the text what is not there (Wikepedia):

You didn't do a very good job of not reading into the text that which is not there. Try again.

[coolrok7]

Were is Sola Scrpitura in these verses of scripture defined as the bible alone? I take it you hold that view?

You didn't do a very good job of not reading into the text that which is not there. Try again.

The problem is that you are viewing it through the Mormon lens and not reading for understanding what I've said since I've been here. We are on different sides of the issue concerning Mormonism and as such will never agree on this.

As a Christian, Protestant, Evangelical. Missouri Synod Lutheran, "Sola Scriptura" along with the other Solas of "Faith" and "Grace" is our view in how we approach understanding the message "delivered to the saints". I can't help that you can't understand that. It is your prerogative to believe as you see fit.

Mormonism crossed over my line and said that I'm "wrong", that I have a "pagan" "greek philosophy" kind of faith as I've pointed out over and over again. But it is Mormonism that appeals to "pagan" teaching and make it the primary teaching of where they differ from what is referred to as "Orthodox" Christianity:

The Biblical Gospel:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

The Mormon so-called "Gospel":

. . .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, . . . (History of the Church, Joseph Smith Jr., April 1844, 6:305)

As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be Lorenzo Snow

The first principles of men are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. . . . (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.354)

The Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son. (quoted in the pamphlet entitled, BRIGHAM YOUNG PROPHET STATESMAN PIONEER, 11/81; JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 13:233, Brigham Young)

Our Heavenly Parents have through aeons of time and a multitude of experiences gradually become acquainted with and applied in their lives an untold number of these everlasting laws. As they learned these verities and how to operate them, these laws thereby became subject unto Elohim and henceforth were His laws or, in other words, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.4)

Jesus became a Godand reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.51)

The Mystery Religions, pagan rivals of Christianity, taught emphatically the doctrine that 'men may become Gods.' Hermeticism, which had its rise in Egypt in the second or third centuries B.C., was a prominent religion in the Mediterranean world during the period of the rise of Christianity. Its literature, The Corpus Hermeticum, professes to be revelations to Hermes from his divine father and teacher. Hermes declared: 'We must not shrink from saying that a man on earth is a mortal god, and that God in heaven is an immortal man.' This thought very closely resembles the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and of President Lorenzo Snow. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.110)

It's actually the other way around. Biblically speaking it is Joseph's and Lorenzo's teachings that 'very closely resembles the teachings of The Mystery Religions, pagan rivals of Christianity,':

And at Lystra there was sitting a certain man, without strength in his feet, lame from his mother's womb, who had never walked. This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze upon him, and had seen that he had faith to be made well, said with a loud voice, 'Stand upright on your feet.' And he leaped up and began to walk. And when the multitudes saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, 'The gods have become like men and have come down to us.' And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, 'Men, why are you doing these things' We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you in order that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM. And in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.' And even saying these things, they with difficulty restrained the crowds from offering sacrifice to them. (Acts 14:8-18; NASB)

In a Church temple preparation teaching manual concerning Celestial marriage (D&C 132 which also teaches a plurality of wives), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the following doctrine (eternal progression- the false gospel of Mormonism):

As shown in this chapter our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children. . . .It is this fact that makes marriage in a temple of God such an important step in our eternal progression. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written this: ?Celestial marriage is a holy and an eternal ordinance;. . .The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, by the right authority; and 2., to keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony--thus assuring the obedient persons of an inheritance of exaltation in the celestial kingdom. (Mormon Doctrine, p.118) (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Salt Lake City: Church Education System, 1976, p.132)

The principle of "Sola Scriptura" is in the verses I quoted. No different than when non "standard works" statements are quoted from and Mormons say, "Its not Scripture"! Mormon so-called Scripture is not from God and thereby excludes it from being considered in my view as not from God because of "Sola Scriptura", a "principle" derived from the Bible.

Jesus said (John and Paul agree), "thy word is truth" and the following:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-16)

But He answered and said, ?It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' (Matthew 4:4)

Then He said to them, ?These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.? And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.' Luke 24:44-49)

Jesus said to him, 'Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.' And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:29-30)

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

'These things I have, written to you who believe in the, name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.' (1 John 5:13)

[Tanyan]

In practice the canon is closed, in theory the canon is open. Shall we dance with Martin Luther and Lutheranism and dance to the song of Martin Luther and Lutheranism being a dangerous non Christian cult to be avoided at all cost in the hearts/minds of many Christians who show that the doctrines/teachings of Martin Luther and Lutheranism as non biblical and sharing pagan beliefs/practices ?, pray tell .

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[saemo]

In a recent thread that was slightly derail we got into a discussion of what Sola scriptura really meant.

I was always under the understanding that it meant that only the bible contains scripture and nothing else was scripture. NOw it appears that I might have had a mis-understaning and have opened this thread to try and understand what it really means. After all I might not have a problem with Sola scriptura if understood in it's proper context.

The Reformation was about breaking from Roman Catholicism. They reject what Catholics understand as the entire deposit of faith, scripture, tradition, a living Church.

Of course, the irony is the Bible came out of the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church from the Bible.

Interesting from this view, Mormonism arose and makes the attempt to put back in what the Reformers took out. With another twist on "what we don't like about Catholics", rejected.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is your position so weak that you can not for just one post stop putting my church down. Good grief this is really lame.

Any way lets looks at what you posted.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-16)

Sounds great and is good advice. How does this verse of scriputre translate into the bible is the only book that contains scriputre?

But He answered and said, ?It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' (Matthew 4:4)

This is a very good verse that demonstartes an open cannon. When did God claim He was done speaking? I missed it.

Then He said to them, ?These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.? And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.' Luke 24:44-49)

This is great but how does this verse tranlate into the bible is the sole source of scripture?

Jesus said to him, 'Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.' And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:29-30)

Sounds great to me bu again how does this verse tranlate into the bible is the sole source of scripture?

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Again how does this verse tranlate into the bible is the sole source of scripture?

'These things I have, written to you who believe in the, name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.' (1 John 5:13)

again how does this verse tranlate into the bible is the sole source of scripture?

You have failed to supply even on verse of scripture that even comes close to saying about how the bible alone contains God scirpture and nothing else can or does contain Gods scripture.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Reformation was about breaking from Roman Catholicism. They reject what Catholics understand as the entire deposit of faith, scripture, tradition, a living Church.

Of course, the irony is the Bible came out of the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church from the Bible.

You are quite correct. I think that is why people here that hold to sola scriptura cannot denfend it because it doesn't exsist and is one way to rationalize their (the reformers) exsistance as being valid.

[cksalmon]

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your understanding of sola scriptura, Mola. I would, however, like to put some flesh on the bones.

Luther on Sola Scriptura

At the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther was asked if he wished to recant such teachings of his deemed heretical by the Roman Catholic authorities. He famously responded:

"Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." (The sentences, "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise"--added later--are likely apocryphal.)

Luther's appeal to this principle--what would come to be called sola scriptura[1]--became the rallying cry of the Reformation. I invoke Luther merely to show that sola scriptura was a primary principle of the Reformation almost from its inception. Note Luther's concern: personal conscience. He refused to acquiesce to Roman Catholic beliefs he believed were not merely absent in the scripture, but contrary to them. To do so would have violated his conscience.

If such refusal, in general, seems commonsensical to our modern ears, it was a profoundly radical position to stake out in Luther's world.

WCF on Sola Scriptura

The [Presbyterian] Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF] (1647)[2] defined sola scriptura in very strong language ("...unto which nothing at any time is to be added...") in WCF 1.6, but I'd like to draw your attention to WCF 1.7, for it contains two key points for understanding the doctrine (or, at least for understanding my understanding of it):

WCF 1.7 All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;(a) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(b)

(a) 2 Pet. 3:16.

(b) Ps. 119:105,130.

Note two things we can glean from this paragraph:

(1) Sola scriptura does not hold that there can be (or even that there should be) no disagreement about the deliverances of scripture. People of good faith can and will disagree.

(2) Sola scriptura does hold that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" can be found within the scriptures and are equally available to all.

To phrase it differently: The salvation of my soul does not depend upon believing what I am unable to find taught in the scriptures. I will return to and expand this theme in my next post. (Gotta run for now.)

First, however:

Saemo wrote:

The Reformation was about breaking from Roman Catholicism.

This requires quite the reductive view of Reformation history, Saemo, and, specifically in the case of Luther, is simply false?as anyone who has delved into Luther's controversies with Roman Catholic authorities would know. Luther desired reformation within the Roman Catholic Church, not excommunication. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

cks

[1] Interestingly, Luther never embraced the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, even while resolutely championing the principle of sola scriptura.

[2] I would actually subscribe to the [baptist] Second London Confession [sLC](1677), but as at so many other points, SLC unrepentantly plagiarizes WCF 1.7.

[Pahoran]

The Reformation was about breaking from Roman Catholicism. They reject what Catholics understand as the entire deposit of faith, scripture, tradition, a living Church.

Of course, the irony is the Bible came out of the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church from the Bible.

Interesting from this view, Mormonism arose and makes the attempt to put back in what the Reformers took out. With another twist on "what we don't like about Catholics", rejected.

Why do you persist in this claim, when you know it has no basis?

News flash for Saemo: it really isn't all about you.

Actually when we look at the form of Christianity you are pleased to call "Mormonism," we discover something quite amazing: it simply stands apart from the developmental history of western Christianity. Its doctrine, while fully compatible with the New Testament, is nonetheless free from the taint of Austinianism and creedalism. (Augustine, as we know, was a Ciceronian.) So, either Joseph managed to separate the scriptural elements from the man-made elements of the Christianity that formed his milieu -- a feat comparable to a fish separating the salt from the ocean in which it swims -- or else he had access to a pristine source.

I wonder what it was?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

CK,

since you have deigned to give us the benefit of your wisdom on this topic, perhaps you'd like to actually address my propositional argument, for the very first time.

My propositions:

1) Sola Scriptura avers that the Bible is the sole authoritative source of doctrinal truth, and that nothing external to that source can or ought to be believed as a point of Christian doctrine.

2) Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible. (Parenthetically, I have found attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there to be generally somewhere south of pathetic.)

3) Therefore Sola Scriptura can or ought not to be believed as a point of Christian doctrine.

The other stuff you have to say is interesting, but can you explain why anyone should embrace a doctrine so exclusionary that it excludes itself?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

CK,

since you have deigned to give us the benefit of your wisdom on this topic

I suggested Mola start the thread and I told him that I would respond. If you choose to characterize that as some sort of "deigning," great. I do so "deign," in your parlance, though, of course, I certainly wouldn't phrase my response in those terms.

...perhaps you'd like to actually address my propositional argument, for the very first time.

My propositions:

1) Sola Scriptura avers that the Bible is the sole authoritative source of doctrinal truth, and that nothing external to that source can or ought to be believed as a point of Christian doctrine.

2) Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible. (Parenthetically, I have found attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there to be generally somewhere south of pathetic.)

3) Therefore Sola Scriptura can or ought not to be believed as a point of Christian doctrine.

Sure. I would note, however, that my first response (that I apparently didn't make) apparently succeeded in eliciting a rewording on your part. But, no matter.

With regard to your (1), I suppose I'd agree. My agreement in no way constitutes a wholesale dismissal of tradition or praxis that is consonant with scripture but not explicitly taught therein.

Moreover, I would note that, while I consider sola scriptura to be a Christian "doctrine," I do so in a fairly broadly conceived manner--as an informative and formative belief that I believe, all things being equal, ought to be held by Christians. But, I don't consider it deal breaker. In other words, I don't personally hold sola scriptura dogmatically. So, for example, if someone were to ask me, "Must I believe in sola scriptura to be saved?" my response would be, "Of course not."

This would be in contrast to certain Roman Catholic beliefs, e.g., belief in purgatory. Trent declared, in no uncertain terms, that my disbelief in purgatory will result in the damnation of my soul.

With regard to your (2): I deny that sola scriptura cannot be adequately adduced from the scriptural witness. (Parenthetically, I have found attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there to be generally cogent.)

Your (3), then, doesn't follow.

cks

[coolrok7]

Mola,I've made the sincere attempt to communicate what I personally believe. I initially responded in bluebell's "Faith alone" thread in where Paloma made a very succinct explanation on the concept of one of the Solas "Sola Fide" of the Reformation- Post # 32, my response # 66. You responded to me in # 67. Ever since you have not accepted any of my explanations of what I personally believe. That is fine with me.

I've said before, I'm responding (in both ZLMB, invited there by a Kevin Graham, invited here by Tanyan) in the context of how Mormonism misrepresents what I believe as a Christian, Protestant, Evangelical, Missouri Synod Lutheran believer. As a Mormonm you are entitled to believe as you see fit.

I reject Mormonism on what I believe and I think have demonstrated accurately on a Biblical basis. You don't like it, I don't like what Mormonism does either but I can accept that is what they believe. Mormons here keep trying to tell me what I believe when I don't believe the way it gets expressed here.

[Mudcat]

My thoughts on Sola Scriptura.

I believe the Bible is the end of the direct revelation of the teachings of Christ. The HS called the apostles into remembrance and they remembered. I can't fault Christ for calling them to such. I can't fault the HS for giving them such remembrance. I can't fault me for trusting that is what Christ called them to and what the Holy Spirit had given was the truth.

I like reading other stuff from the ECFs and so forth. But I think these among many others are simply speaking in regards to what they believe God has revealed to them through the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

[Ms. Jack]

In a recent thread that was slightly derail we got into a discussion of what Sola scriptura really meant.

I was always under the understanding that it meant that only the bible contains scripture and nothing else was scripture. NOw it appears that I might have had a mis-understaning and have opened this thread to try and understand what it really means. After all I might not have a problem with Sola scriptura if understood in it's proper context.

Hi Mola Ram Suda Ram,

The short answer is, sola scriptura holds that "Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures."

Many Christians confuse sola scriptura with what is actually solo scriptura or nuda scriptura. These are the "Me, my Jesus, my Bible and that's it!" people. Solo/Nuda scriptura holds that "[t]radition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions."

C. Michael Patton of Parchment & Pen blog did an excellent series which very clearly explains (and defends) sola scriptura. If you're really interested in understanding the differences in how traditional Christians across the spectrum approach this topic, you may want to check it out. The citations above come from his first post on the subject.

Part 1: Authority Across the Spectrum

Part 2: Martin Luther

Part 3: An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory

Part 4: What Did John Believe?

Part 5: What is Tradition?

Part 6: Apostolic Succession?

Part 7: What About the Canon?

Part 8: What About All the Divisions?

Part 9: A Biblical Defense

Part 10: A Historical Defense

Even if you completely disagree with Patton, it is a great online introduction to the topic.

I hope that's helpful.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Mola Ram Suda Ram,

The short answer is, sola scriptura holds that "Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures."

Many Christians confuse sola scriptura with what is actually solo scriptura or nuda scriptura. These are the "Me, my Jesus, my Bible and that's it!" people. Solo/Nuda scriptura holds that "[t]radition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions."

C. Michael Patton of Parchment & Pen blog did an excellent series which very clearly explains (and defends) sola scriptura. If you're really interested in understanding the differences in how traditional Christians across the spectrum approach this topic, you may want to check it out. The citations above come from his first post on the subject.

Part 1: Authority Across the Spectrum

Part 2: Martin Luther

Part 3: An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory

Part 4: What Did John Believe?

Part 5: What is Tradition?

Part 6: Apostolic Succession?

Part 7: What About the Canon?

Part 8: What About All the Divisions?

Part 9: A Biblical Defense

Part 10: A Historical Defense

Even if you completely disagree with Patton, it is a great online introduction to the topic.

I hope that's helpful.

Thank you for the reply. Thanks also to CK and Mudcat.

It seems that on the surface of what Sola Scriptura means I agree with. I think we should hold to what is called scipture. So now I would ask, " What is scripture". I think I just have an issue and one that is not justified by the bible is that "Sola Scriptura" = "Bible alone". We know that God can add scripture at any time. Does any one here disagree with this? If so on what grounds.

BY taught that we should test everything by the scriptures. That of course for LDS means the BoM and the D&C and PofGP. That really isn't much different than what Luther was getting at. At his time the cannonized scripture for most Christains was solely the bible. But I seriously doubt that Luther thought that the bible was the end all of God's word or scripture. I might be ignorant if he did proclaim such. If God was going to add more scripture, using the bible as our guide, how would He do it?

[Ms. Jack]

I think I just have an issue and one that is not justified by the bible is that "Sola Scriptura" = "Bible alone".

Well, sola scriptura isn't "Bible alone." Sola scriptura is "Bible alone is infallible, tradition can be inspired but is fallible." However, for the purposes of what (I think) you're asking, sola scriptura does hold that the Bible is the only infallible Scripture we have so far.

We know that God can add scripture at any time. Does any one here disagree with this?

I've always been a fan of Craig Blomberg's explanation on this from How Wide the Divide that the canon is open in principle but closed in practice. I personally am open to the possibility that God can add Scripture at any time, I simply don't think He has. (Obviously I reject the BoM, D&C and PoGP for other reasons or else I would not be an evangelical.)

That really isn't much different than what Luther was getting at. At his time the cannonized scripture for most Christains was solely the bible. But I seriously doubt that Luther thought that the bible was the end all of God's word or scripture.

Actually, around Luther's time, there was heated disagreement concerning the placement of the Apocrypha/Deutero-canonical Books. Luther was suspicious of them and placed them in the appendix of his Bible. The Roman Catholic Church convened the Council of Trent (1545-1563) which, among other things, declared the Deutero-canonical Books to be on par with the rest of Scripture in inspiration and infallibility. The Protestants disagreed with this move and, eventually, those who followed Luther removed the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles altogether. Mormons apparently think Protestants were inspired in this move because they use the Protestant canon, contra the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches (although, ironically, LDS adherence to the KJV has bound the church to the Byzantine Text).

(For the record, I am aware of D&C 91.)

Bottom line being, I don't think Luther would have commented on the possibility of brand new Scripture being added because, at his time, the issue facing him was whether or not potential Scripture ought to be taken out.

If God was going to add more scripture, using the bible as our guide, how would He do it?

I think He would need a regular outpouring of miracles to establish the revelatory authority of the men and women communicating the new Scriptures. The early Church had 500+ men and women as witnesses declaring the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:6), and men and women regularly spoke in tongues and prophesied immediately after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That's just my theory though. There are probably better ones out there.

A question for you on how the LDS system compares to sola scriptura: would you ever call the Book of Mormon, the D&C, or the PoGP "infallible," either in their current form or in their original autographs? Or in other words, can the BoM, D&C, and PoGP contain errors, either in their current form or in their original autographs?

[DLClark]

It is the futility of God in giving Scripture if He knew it would be lost.

God spoke to man in Scripture. He was giving mankind a road MAP/TPW/pac/ for living. He spoke to show us the way.

Since His speaking was a miraculous undertaking, the begging question is: How could God start out to speak to man through Scripture and fail? If God wanted to speak to mankind, to give his Scripture to the world, how is it that He only succeeded in giving it to one or tow dozen generations?

It is logically inconsistent to think that the Creator could set out to give us Scripture and then be foiled in His attempt by the foibles of men. It is logically inconsistent to think that God sent His Scripture and men lost it. It is logically inconsistent to think that God inspired Scripture if He did not intend to preserve it.

Did you know that Jesus Christ quoted from the Old Testament copiously. He was satisfied that it had been faithfully preserved. He called it the Word of God. He read Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint. His confidence in the Old Testament gives us confidence in it.

Textual criticism is the process by which scientists reconstruct the content of ancient documents. It is very simple in theory. Scientists simply gather together all the existing copies of an ancient document and compare them. Our certainty of the content of the original is linked to the degree to which the copies agree.

Here is some information that I think you will find informative.

Throughout history, before the invention of the printing press, hand-copied books of the New Testament were carried throughout the Old World.

Today scientists have access to thousands of these ancient manuscript fragments, which were found in various parts of the world ? Africa, Asia, Europe.

These documents were copied in various times periods. Some come to us from the eighth century, some from as early as the second century.

A textual critic will assemble all the fragments of a particular portion of the New Testament and compare them to see if they agree or disagree.

1. We start with the original manuscripts or the letters of Paul for example.

2. We come down to the copies sent to the Laodiceans and others.

3. We find copies of the copies in the third generation.

4. We have multiple copies found of Paul?s letters in various centuries in Africa, Asia, and Europe and compared. Remarkable agreement demonstrates supernatural preservation.

Textual critics, whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim, or agnostic are in absolute agreement. They say that the text of the Bible is certain. One leading critic, Sir Frederic Kenyon, has said, ?It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain.

Even the Mormon Church agree with this. BYU professor Dr. Richard Anderson says Kenyon is right! That all the ancient manuscripts agree in 99% of the Bible verses. And that there are no serious problems with the Bible.

(Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, pp. 52-59.)

So now we know - with amazing accuracy ? what the apostle Paul wrote to the churches at Colossae and Rome and Philippi.

[Vance]

Well, sola scriptura isn't "Bible alone." Sola scriptura is "Bible alone is infallible, tradition can be inspired but is fallible." However, for the purposes of what (I think) you're asking, sola scriptura does hold that the Bible is the only infallible Scripture we have so far.

Where does the Bible claim infallibility for itself?

(Since the Bible is a collection of books that was first agreed upon well after the disappearance of any of the authors, how can it claim anything for itself?)

Also, what infallible process was used to determine that the Bible was infallible?

[Vance]

A question for you on how the LDS system compares to sola scriptura: would you ever call the Book of Mormon, the D&C, or the PoGP "infallible," either in their current form or in their original autographs? Or in other words, can the BoM, D&C, and PoGP contain errors, either in their current form or in their original autographs?

You are well aware of this statement from the Title page in the Book of Mormon. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

God is well aware of the fallibility of men, yet all through history He has used fallible men as witnesses/messengers/prophets of His word.

There is a difference between perfect/infallible and "good enough" to fulfill His purposes.