Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sola Scriptura? Is it actually in the Scriptures?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 16 of 106 (252469)
10-17-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-17-2005 1:25 AM


Tackle What?
Sola Scriptura is a reformation doctrine.
The Reformers believed that Scripture alone was the only infallible source for revelation and, therefore, the Scripture alone was the primary source available for instruction on all maters of faith and practice.
Not sure what you are trying to determine?

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-17-2005 1:25 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-18-2005 1:38 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 17 of 106 (252574)
10-18-2005 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
10-17-2005 3:06 PM


Re: Everything?
Exactly.
Don't misunderstand me Ringo. I'm not arguing in favor of Sola Scriptura. I'm arguing that Sola Scriptura is ironically not actually in the Scriptures.
I noted that no one seemed to reply to this thread to defend Sola Scriptura -- so I went looking for passages that I've heard others use to defend it in order to examine them here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 10-17-2005 3:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 10-18-2005 11:48 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 18 of 106 (252575)
10-18-2005 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by purpledawn
10-17-2005 6:27 PM


Re: Tackle What?
I guess what I've already determined -- that Sola Scriptura is not actually in the Scriptures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by purpledawn, posted 10-17-2005 6:27 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 106 (252726)
10-18-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-18-2005 1:36 AM


Re: Everything?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Don't misunderstand me Ringo. I'm not arguing in favor of Sola Scriptura.
Yes, I understand. I was just pointing out that what one person might say is evidence for Sola Scriptura, another person might say was evidence against it. Happens a lot when discussing the Bible.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-18-2005 1:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 20 of 106 (253005)
10-19-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-17-2005 1:25 AM


Re: bump.
I don't suppose there is any verse in scripture which says this - otherwise as a Catholic who doesn't presumably hold to Sola Scritpura, you wouldn't have asked this. Not that the basis for Sola Scriptura is weakened by this - the word Trinity doesn't appear in the bible either but it's none appearance doesn't weaken the doctrine.
A couple of thoughts for the basis for SS...
NT warnings given and NT times examples that heresy would come in - even from within the church. Thus the church itself is shown not to be infallible.
Whilst we know (if we are believers) that the bible is the word of God, there are no other source referred which are of equal merit
No reason is given to go outside of scripture for our doctrine.
I suppose therefore that it's a case of Occams Razor. Until such time as some equally trustworthy source arrives, scripture, for safeties sake, must be considered sufficient

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-17-2005 1:25 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-20-2005 10:15 AM iano has replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 21 of 106 (253248)
10-19-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-17-2005 1:25 AM


Re: bump.
quote:
No one's going to tackle this one?
Come one guys -- Sola Scriptura? Surely it must be in the Scriptures?
By the way, I'm not mocking anyone's faith. I'm just very surprised that no one actually came to defend this.
I guess I'll take a look myself and see if I can find any verses which could be seen in this light.
Sola Scriptura as opposed to sacred tradition. I believe it is the purpose of this term - scripture only/alone, to point out that the substitution of sacred tradition for sacred writings is unacceptable.
The bible warns with great deliberateness against adding and taking away from it. It makes sacred tradition void.
The information in the link may help you.
http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm
Sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide, sola Scriptura -- salvation is by grace alone, in Christ alone, by faith alone, and all that is necessary for salvation is taught in Scripture alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-17-2005 1:25 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 1:34 AM DorfMan has replied
 Message 23 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 1:41 AM DorfMan has not replied
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 10-20-2005 6:47 AM DorfMan has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 22 of 106 (253252)
10-20-2005 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by DorfMan
10-19-2005 11:31 PM


Re: bump.
Great article.
Now could you please point out the Scriptural passages which actually specifically says that one can only trust the Scriptures themselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by DorfMan, posted 10-19-2005 11:31 PM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by DorfMan, posted 10-20-2005 8:19 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 23 of 106 (253253)
10-20-2005 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by DorfMan
10-19-2005 11:31 PM


Re: bump.
But there are plenty of examples in the Scriptures themselves where believers use numerous other methods outside the Scriptures to determine God's will.
For example:
NIV writes:
So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
They didn't rely on the Scriptures at all. They simply relied on the Lord himself guiding the direction of the lots in order to determine his will.
Edit: Now let's get to your post.
iano writes:
I don't suppose there is any verse in scripture which says this - otherwise as a Catholic who doesn't presumably hold to Sola Scritpura, you wouldn't have asked this.
Whoa, that's actually not fair iano. I'm not the one claiming that the Scriptures are the sole means for salvation and knowing God. Those claiming that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is "biblical" are the ones who need to back up their view by "quoting the Scriptures". In fact, in light of the doctrine itself, people who adhere to this doctrine are very much obligated to provide the proof.
iano writes:
Not that the basis for Sola Scriptura is weakened by this - the word Trinity doesn't appear in the bible either but it's none appearance doesn't weaken the doctrine.
We both agree that the Trinity can be seen in the Scriptures. In fact, many Christians from various different denominations will agree with us that the Scriptures plainly state this.
But we're not talking about the Trinity, are we?
We're talking about the "doctrine" of Sola Scritura.
I will also note that my view as a Catholic doesn't have as much to do with this as my former view as a Lutheran does. I've read through significant portions of the Book of Concord, and I've yet to see any Scriptural text which actually validates what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura claims.
iano writes:
A couple of thoughts for the basis for SS...
NT warnings given and NT times examples that heresy would come in - even from within the church. Thus the church itself is shown not to be infallible.
Although I certainly agree with you that our actions are certainly fallable, the church is considered infallable as far as doctrine itself is concerned.
It seems to me the passsages which talk about heresies that come from "within" the church are actually evidence that they do not belong to the church if I recall correctly.
Besides that, if indeed a written letter from God is considered infallible, then I will note that 2 Corinthians 3:3 quite clearly states:
NIV writes:
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
iano writes:
Whilst we know (if we are believers) that the bible is the word of God, there are no other source referred which are of equal merit.
Actually, for the record, the entire verse states:
NIV writes:
You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God.
NIV writes:
No reason is given to go outside of scripture for our doctrine.
There's penty of reasons to note (from the Scriptures themselves I might add) that the entirety of God's revelation is not contained within the Scriptures themselves.
NIV writes:
I suppose therefore that it's a case of Occams Razor.
Occams Razor says that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. However, I have demonstrated that these entities already exist within the Scriptures themselves -- so no one is adding anything in order to exlain anything.
Furthermore, since Sola Scriptura seems to be linked with hundreds of different denominational views -- many of which actually contradict themselves -- what really seems to be said here is that Sola Scriptura is actually another name for Tradition among protestant evangelicals.
Although it is not specifically stated as such, Lutherans carry on in the tradition of Luther, just as Calvinists carry on in the tradition of Calvin, just as Wesleyans carry on in the tradition of Wesley -- just as Catholics carry on in the traditions of Catholics.
The only difference between the Catholic church when contrasted to the reasoning of the other denominations is that the Catholic church calls it Tradition whereas the other groups call it Sola Scriptura.
It seems as though, when contrasted with the various denominational ties that are connected to it, the idea of Sola Scriptura itself is what leads Christianity to increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain Christianity.
iano writes:
Until such time as some equally trustworthy source arrives, scripture, for safeties sake, must be considered sufficient
Before you misunderstand me, I will note that, as Dave Armstrong points out, it is important to realize that the parameters set by the Catholic definitions of the Scriptures are all negative -- that is, they point out what cannot be denied about the meaning of a passage but do not limit how much more the passage can be interpreted to say.
In other words, the Church condemns denials of a specific interpretation of the text, without condemning meanings over and above but not contradictory to it.
Consequently, there are a few verses in the Scriptures which I would ask you to ponder.
NIV writes:
1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
What do you think these passages mean?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-20-2005 05:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by DorfMan, posted 10-19-2005 11:31 PM DorfMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 5:22 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 26 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 6:42 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 24 of 106 (253265)
10-20-2005 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-20-2005 1:41 AM


Re: bump.
Mr Ex writes:
They didn't rely on the Scriptures at all. They simply relied on the Lord himself guiding the direction of the lots in order to determine his will.
That men who were appointed and directed by God to propagate his plan of salvation (including the writing of scripture) should be...er... directed is hardly earth shattering revelation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 1:41 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 5:48 AM iano has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 25 of 106 (253266)
10-20-2005 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by iano
10-20-2005 5:22 AM


Re: bump.
Please note that I've edited my first post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 5:22 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 6:52 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 26 of 106 (253272)
10-20-2005 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-20-2005 1:41 AM


Re: bump.
mx writes:
Whoa, that's actually not fair iano. I'm not the one claiming that the Scriptures are the sole means for salvation and knowing God. Those claiming that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is "biblical" are the ones who need to back up their view by "quoting the Scriptures". In fact, in light of the doctrine itself, people who adhere to this doctrine are very much obligated to provide the proof.
can we take this point at a time to keep things brief?
We agree the bible is the word of God. God has written and the simplest (Occams Razor) conclusion is that it is meant to be read by people. When they do, they come to conclusions about what it says. These may be right conclusions or they may be wrong conclusions. God knows this. Presumably, he wants us to interprete correctly. Presumably he takes some action to ensure this. The question is: what would that action be?
Our starting point is scripture and to decide to move outside it for interpretation purposes, means a reason to do so must exist: objects at rest (in scripture) stay at rest unless acted upon by an exterior force. Given that the bible is the starting point of known inerrancy, it would have to give us and inerrant message that cannot be mis-interpreted in order to get us moving outside it. This brings us back to our initial problem.
If we cannot be sure we are interpreting the bible correctly, we cannot use (potentially) flawed interpretation of the bible in order to warrant a move outside it.
In other words: to say that we can interpret the bible correctly so as to come to the correct conclusion that we must go outside it to intepret it correctly - results in us arguing in a circle
But it must be possible to interpret the bible correctly. Thus Gods method of ensuring that, must lie within. So there is no reason to go outside it for interpretation purposes.
We have a case for sola scriptura for interpretation purposes. So lets look purely at scripture and ignore any reference to the external when we discuss interpretation. Agreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 1:41 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-21-2005 2:39 AM iano has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 27 of 106 (253273)
10-20-2005 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by DorfMan
10-19-2005 11:31 PM


The Bible Warns
quote:
The bible warns with great deliberateness against adding and taking away from it.
Where does the Bible warn against editing the words of the authors?

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by DorfMan, posted 10-19-2005 11:31 PM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by DorfMan, posted 10-20-2005 8:48 AM purpledawn has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 28 of 106 (253274)
10-20-2005 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-20-2005 5:48 AM


Re: bump.
I can't see and "edit" line on it so I don't know what you edited. No matter, I was responding to message 23. If you want to consider the part I responded to as deleted from your train of thought then okay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 5:48 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 29 of 106 (253284)
10-20-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-20-2005 1:34 AM


Re: bump.
quote:
Now could you please point out the Scriptural passages which actually specifically says that one can only trust the Scriptures themselves?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 1:34 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 11:13 AM DorfMan has replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 30 of 106 (253285)
10-20-2005 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by purpledawn
10-20-2005 6:47 AM


Re: The Bible Warns
quote:
Where does the Bible warn against editing the words of the authors?
One author, God. Many sub-contractors, the writers under the influence.
Rev 20:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
1 Cor 4:6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written
My car comes with instructions from the manufacturer. I rely on this guide and he relies on the writers of it for accuracy.
Taking away or adding to the guide makes it useless. It is in the interest of the manufacturer to hire and use trustworthy employees.
For God, employees are less difficult to choose. He knows the heart and mind of his choices.
More than the excellent care for my car is involved in the guide called scriptures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 10-20-2005 6:47 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 10-20-2005 9:59 AM DorfMan has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024