Jump to content

Sola Scriptura


Zakuska

Recommended Posts

Romans 10

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul is speaking of SPOKEN words not scripture.

Link to comment

If sola scriptura means that we should look to the scriptures for our doctrine, I agree. If sola scritpura means "all the scripture in the world is contained in the bible and the bible only." then I reject that. That is unbiblical.

Most of the time Sola Scriptura seems to mean that latter definition.

Link to comment

Romans 10

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul is speaking of SPOKEN words not scripture.

I think he is quoting Isaiah here, I know I read that passage either today or yesterday, but it also appears in the latter part of Isaiah.

One thing that I see here with your theme is Isaiah 55:8-11...

Link to comment

You mean because "sola scriptura" is extra Biblical? And therefore self contradictory?

Yes indeed. If sola scriptura is right, but it is not in the Bible, then can it be right even though it is not in the Bible? If all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness is contained in it besides an actual statement that all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness is contained in it, is it really contained therein?

Link to comment

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Romans 10

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul is speaking of SPOKEN words not scripture.

We can debate the merits of sola scriptura, but this isn't a particularly illuminating or helpful argument against it. Evangelicals don't deny the importance of human beings speaking to other human beings to communicate the gospel.

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

If sola scriptura means that we should look to the scriptures for our doctrine, I agree. If sola scritpura means "all the scripture in the world is contained in the bible and the bible only." then I reject that. That is unbiblical.

Most of the time Sola Scriptura seems to mean that latter definition.

Interesting comment. Actually, sola scriptura simply means that we should derive our doctrine from the scriptures, just as you said. That's a pretty fair statement of what the doctrine of sola scriptura says.

The issue of whether the Bible is the only scripture we have is a different question. It is the question of the extent of the canon.

Would you agree that between, say, AD 100 and AD 1820, the only scripture that the Christian church had was the Bible?

Link to comment

We can debate the merits of sola scriptura, but this isn't a particularly illuminating or helpful argument against it. Evangelicals don't deny the importance of human beings speaking to other human beings to communicate the gospel.

The Evangelicals Ive talked to beleive it means that all they need is the Bible period.

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

Interesting comment. Actually, sola scriptura simply means that we should derive our doctrine from the scriptures, just as you said. That's a pretty fair statement of what the doctrine of sola scriptura says.

The issue of whether the Bible is the only scripture we have is a different question. It is the question of the extent of the canon.

Would you agree that between, say, AD 100 and AD 1820, the only scripture that the Christian church had was the Bible?

I may be splitting hairs here but I think there is an important distinction between the question you are asking and the answer that I will state.

I would agree that only what people put into the bible as the cannon (that they recognized) is what Christian churches had from AD100 to AD 1820.

I make that statement as various churches had more scripture so to speak than other churches had. Meaning they (Catholics) recongized more books then what is currently in the KJV of the bible.

Link to comment

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Why? On what basis do you say this? Why could we not say, with at least equal validity, that if the Bible was incomplete God would have said so?

This is the problem, the bible is silent on the matter, in unequivocal terms, that is. There is certainly room for interpretation and even some historical context, I think that would lead one to conclude that the bible was not complete. Or that the bible might be missing some books of scripture that it may have or could have contained.

Link to comment

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Why? On what basis do you say this? Why could we not say, with at least equal validity, that if the Bible was incomplete God would have said so?

God did say so.

Rev. 10: 4

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

Who's going to write what the thunders said?

Amos 3: 7

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Link to comment
. . . if the Bible was incomplete God would have said so?

" . . .man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." (Deuteronomy 8:3)

Has God every said anything not written in the Bible?

Ex. 24:7 the book of the covenant

Num. 21:14 book of the wars of the Lord

Josh. 10:13 (2 Sam. 1:18) book of Jasher

1 Kgs. 11:41 book of the acts of Solomon

1 Chr. 29:29 book of Samuel the seer

2 Chr. 9:29 book of Nathan the prophet

2 Chr. 12:15 book of Shemaiah the prophet

2 Chr. 20:34 book of Jehu

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25)

Just for a start.

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

I may be splitting hairs here but I think there is an important distinction between the question you are asking and the answer that I will state.

I would agree that only what people put into the bible as the cannon (that they recognized) is what Christian churches had from AD100 to AD 1820.

I make that statement as various churches had more scripture so to speak than other churches had. Meaning they (Catholics) recongized more books then what is currently in the KJV of the bible.

Feel free to split those hairs. But since Mormons don't accept any of those books that the Catholics recognize and the Protestants don't, I don't see what difference this split hair makes. In other words, you are not aware of any books that from the LDS perspective should be in the canon of Scripture to which Christians had access between 100 and 1820 but that they rejected. Thus, the only scripture that Christians had between 100 and 1820 was the Bible. Right?

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

Feel free to split those hairs. But since Mormons don't accept any of those books that the Catholics recognize and the Protestants don't, I don't see what difference this split hair makes. In other words, you are not aware of any books that from the LDS perspective should be in the canon of Scripture to which Christians had access between 100 and 1820 but that they rejected. Thus, the only scripture that Christians had between 100 and 1820 was the Bible. Right?

yeah. To put it shortly.

Link to comment

I do think the final verse of the Gospel of John is interesting if you believe that the Bible contains all scripture:

John 21:25 - 25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

If the Bible doesn't contain all the things which Jesus did, why would you assume it would contain all scripture? Or do you think because all the things that Jesus did are not in the Bible He couldn't possibly have done them?

Link to comment

EbedCommonality.png

Feel free to split those hairs. But since Mormons don't accept any of those books that the Catholics recognize and the Protestants don't, I don't see what difference this split hair makes. In other words, you are not aware of any books that from the LDS perspective should be in the canon of Scripture to which Christians had access between 100 and 1820 but that they rejected. Thus, the only scripture that Christians had between 100 and 1820 was the Bible. Right?

The words Jesus spoke in the Old World are primarily contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament. As has been note previously by others, the apostle John said that the world could not contain the books that should be written about the works of Jesus.

Link to comment

The doctrine of sola scriptura doesn't say that everything not written in the Bible is false, or even that all other sacred writings are false. What it really says is that everything that relates to salvation and the divine must be judged by the Bible, that the Bible is the sole authority on these matters. Traditions, sermons, interpretations are all to be judged by what is written in the Bible. Sola Scriptura rejects any other book as having such authority.

Link to comment

Sorry I don't understand your reply. The doctrine of sola scriptura is that the bible is the only ultimate authority on the divine. How does that make the Bible unauthoritative?

You misunderstand my post. Perhaps I could have been more clear.

You said "Sola Scriptura rejects any other book as having such authority", from this I assumed the subject was "Sola Scriptura" and not the Bible. My response was based on this understanding that the topic was "Sola Scriptura"

And so I responded "Therefore rejecting itself as authoritative and therefore being internally inconsistent. ;):P

In other words "Sola Scriptura" rejects itself as authoritative because it is OUTSIDE of the "authoritative Bible", which it claims is the "only ultimate authority on the divine".

So to answer you question "How does that make the Bible unauthoritative?" it doesn't, it makes "Sola Scriptura" unauthoritative.

To put it simply. "Sola Scriptura" makes "Sola Scriptura" unathoritative, and therefore meaningless.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...