Sola Scriptura? Is it actually in the Scriptures?

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.htmSola 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.

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.

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 writtenMy 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.

quote:

---

Oddly enough by making the statement:

​

The bible warns with great deliberateness against adding and taking away from it.

​

You have gone beyond what was written.

​

quote: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.

​

That is for the prophecy written in Revelations, not the entire Bible canon.

​

quote: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

​

All that was written as far as holy scripture during Paul's time was the Tanakh.

​

Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

​

Paul isn't talking about not adding or taking away from the written word.

​

Your car analogy doesn't really fit. The manual that comes with a car is not complete anyway. It is only enough information to tell you how to run the car. It doesn't have all the information necessary to fix the car.

​

Adding or deleting from the instruction manual does not automatically make the manual useless. It would only be useless if necessary information was taken away or incorrect information was added. Most people only read the manual to figure out how to use the new gadgets in the car.

​

Plus as the car changes, so does the instruction manual. Cars do not remain the same. People do not remain the same. Manuals do not remain the same. That's why the Jews have the Oral Torah, which was given to them from God through Moses.

---

ok

quote:

---

While I'll admit that the reference to the law does have a strong connotation with the Scriptures, I would like to note that the word testimony seems to be used elsewhere in the Scriptures for either...

---

While I'll admit that the reference I provided would NOT be accepted in its simplicity covering the broadest spectrum called scripture, I gave it a go anyways.As for the 'metaphorical language' contained in Is 8:16? One way or the other, it does not address the issue of Sola Scriptura.

quote:

---

DorfMan writes:

​

As for the 'metaphorical language' contained in Is 8:16? One way or the other, it does not address the issue of Sola Scriptura.

​

I admit that I could be wrong, but I think it does.

​

For example, consider the following:

​

Matthew 16:19 writes:

​

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

---

Then explain it to me away from RCC connotations/applications/meanings.....Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.........who claims to have the orally given authority to teach her doctrines in place of scripture.For the RCC it is always and ever - "the church says" -
Never, ever - "the Bible says" -Those who object to what the churh says finding little or no biblical evidence in her doctrines, list on the side of sola scriptura and all that is necessary for salvation is found within its pages.

quote:

---

You need to remember that using the word "Scripture" to mean the Bible is a revision of what was meant by the word Scripture in the Bible.

​

The Canons were not created until hundreds of years after the fact. When the things that are in the Bible were written there was no Bible, the word Scripture simply refered to all the body of theological writings and the oral tradition.

​

To now try to limit Scripture to the various books included in the different Canons is to change completely what was meant at the time.

---

Thanks for the admonition.
Christ said 'it is written'. Christ never said 'it is oralled'.
'Created canons' is a great call and description of what they are, for created they were. Since not a single one of them has a scriptural foundation, they are the vain traditions of men.Perhaps you have read this essay. The site has links to some interesting deliberations.http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm

quote:

---

Yup, read it. Laughed a lot.

​

Somehow you still seem to be missing both the obvious and impossible to refute point.

​

When you see the word Scripture used in the Bible it does not mean the Bible. It cannot. There was no Bible when those words were written.

​

The whole Sola Scriptura movement is based on a fallacy.

​

'Created canons' is a great call and description of what they are, for created they were.

​

Yes, the Bible is created, the work of man, and it's contents vary from sect to sect. Not only is there no such thing as THE Bible, the Bible is not Scripture as mentioned in the Bible.

---

Indeed! And which part amused you best?

quote:

---

Indeed! And which part amused you best?

​

I think the funniest part is the idea that Scripture is only the Bible and that when Scripture is mentioned in the Bible, it's refering to the Bible.

​

First, there is no single Bible. I'm not refering to translations, there is no one list of what books make up the Bible.

​

Second, since the Bible didn't exist until hundreds of years after the books that ended up being included, the reference to Scripture could not be refering to the Bible.

​

Third, the term Scripture at the time the books of the NT were being written refered to things that were to be learned, written and oral.

​

Fourth, there are NO writings from Jesus. All of his message was transmitted orally. If you are going to limit scripture to what was written, you can throw Jesus out.

---

So, you are saying that the RCC-originated treatise is wrong and they need not even worry about scripture? I wonder if they know that. Yours is a clear act of mercy and pardon. Remarkable!

quote:

---

they need not even worry about scripture?

​

Well, perhaps you'll be kind enough to point out just where I said that?

​

Or maybe stop trying to put words in my mouth?

​

What I have said is that there is no justification for the idea that the only source for knowledge about GOD is the Bible and that when the term Scripture is used in the books of the Bible it is referring to far, far more than the Bible, no matter which version (version not translation) is chosen.

---

I believe you said you read the treatise and concluded that the RCC need not have wasted time on such a study. If that is not the outcome of your effort, then please explain. What do you mean, exactly?Here is the meaning of the word scripture: Middle English, from Late Latin scriptura, from Latin, act or product of writing, from scriptus. You say scripture refers to far, far more than scripture. I am, however, not familiar with additional meanings of this word.

quote:

---

IIRC the actual origin of the term Scripture came from the Greek word theopneustos which means God Breathed. It refers to anything that was inspired by GOD, written or oral.

​

But regardless,when we see the term Scripture in the Bible, it does not refer to the Bible. The Bible did not exist at the time they were written.

​

In addition, there is no one universal Bible today. The common Canon found in the RC and most Protestant churches is only one of many canons. Other Christian Churches have different Canons and so different books are included in the Bible.

​

A good example is the Book of Enoch, 1 Enoch. It was Scripture at the time the NT was written, quoted in Hebrews. But it never made it into the accepted canon of the Roman Catholic Church (and thus into the Protestant Canon) but IS included in the Canon of the Ethiopian Christian Church.

---

You maintain your tangent and choose not to answer my question(s). You don't need my permission to do so.
There is actually nothing wrong with oral traditions, and everything wrong with sacred tradition that bears no resemblence to original content. It is that deviation that prompted Sola Scriptura and the rejection of sacred tradition.Mark 7:7-9, 13 "Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
tradition...Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."II Timothy 3:16-17 "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."These people did decidedly not know what they were talking about.Since the plan of salvation is designed for all to understand, I insist that scripture means the written word and nothing else. The rest is mayhem, chaos, confusion.B. Documentation
Vatican Council II Documents
No. 58, Dei Verbum, 18 Nov. 1965, Vol. I,
Sec. 10, p. 756 "It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise
arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the
Magisterium of the [Roman Catholic] Church are so connected and
associated that one of them cannot stand without the others."Imagine it! The Bible cannot stand on its own and that is/was God's arrangement.The Roman church alone is able to interpret scripture. That leaves you out and everyone else NOT the magisterium.Sec. 10, p. 755 "But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Roman Catholic] Church alone."