Sola Scriptura? Is it actually in the Scriptures?

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 meritNo 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

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

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 circleBut 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?

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.

The readers of 1 Corinthians were holding holy scripture in their hands as they read. Like, it didn't become holy scripture because men later decided it was. It was holy scripture as soon as it was written. So we can include at least 1 Cor in the equation. And whatever other holy letters that got copied and circulated between the churches which led to them being included in the canon

that wasn't common sense: it was a contrast between the reign of Law and the reign of Grace. Which is completely scriptural: under law or under grace.

I know I'm only a nubie in your eyes so I looked and looked and I couldn't find this quote. I take it then that your paraphrasing. Which is not the same thing as having scripture demonstrate it.This is a bit like your doctrine "we are expected to try our best to obey the law". It is assumed of scripture rather than being shown to be so. "It's the obvious conclusion...." is not a tack that can be taken in this, a discussion about such things.This message has been edited by iano, 24-Oct-2005 03:54 PM

The point I was trying to make is that you've ascribed (without biblical foundation) that 'only a damn fool' is the motivation behind Jesus criticising the pharisees legalism. Maybe there was more that could be said which you didn't say but I can only (try to) comment on what you write...

See post above to Jar. Ascribing something to scripture that isn't there occurs frequently but we can all do that and disappear in a haze of subjectivity. I would have thought it would be more interesting to try to see what scripture indicates these things meanBut with yourself and Jar I'm having a bit of a problem in that what scripture is itself is hardly established. There is no common foundation from which to push out from.On those grounds I'll finish up this discussion here

I wouldn't dream of using such a statement in a vacuum. The problem here is that Jar and Ringo and others frequently quote parts of the bible in making their point. And when another part of the bible is used to refute the point or make a counterpoint you get "but that's Pauls teaching" or " the bible is corrupted/of man etc" - which only seems to undermine their own point too.It seems as soon as you get into picking and choosing which is 'Gods word'(inerrant/accurate) and which is 'mans word' (potentially errant and inaccurate) then the discussion must cease. Like, whose to know which is which without getting into a quagmire of "it can never be shown one way or the other" subjectivityEither you stay within scripture to make a biblical case or it becomes a case of 'whatever your having yourself'. To which everyone is entitled I suppose.AbE: My own inclination is to think that there is no biblical case to be made for "trying" as a means to salvation /lack of 'trying' as a means to damnation. And that there is a case to be made for the sole purpose of the law being to condemn a man. But in order to avoid being exposed, the arbitary but useful "that is not the bible" ploy is pulled, rabbit-like, out of the hat when the need arisesThis message has been edited by iano, 26-Oct-2005 04:54 PM

I would have no intention of ignoring Jesus. I would include parts from any part of the bible I felt was relevant to the case. You on the otherhand have decided to apply a (fairly arbitary sounding)weighting system. Which I can't see the basis for. That we haven't got common ground means we can't discuss the issue. Your talking imperial and I'm talking metric. A recipe for wasted time Your agreement that the bible was as if dictated by God - with which I concurred. I would have thought it would be sufficient. No matter. I haven't agreed to any other inerrant source so for the sake of the (ex-discussion) sola scriptura it was.Unless we agree to go outside sola scripture - in which case we could expect the IPU-ists to turn up in no time.I'd rather not....This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 10-26-2005 05:22 PM

Of course, silly me. I retract. As I'll point out to Mr X, I'll retract my arguments re: sola scripture. I'm pushing a 'trying' thread and am coming up short on time so...

Hi Mr XSorry for not returning to your counter to my counter to your OP. You did make very strong points, alas time constraints mean I can't go there right now so if you would, allow me to withdraw my argumentsOn the subject of trying, I've posed a thread on that subject so I may meet you there (although naturally in posing it I got to put some constraints in (just in case Ringo-the-cameleon trips across it )

Might as well get some practice in with a pro for the road ahead.How are we saved? By grace of course. Grace/gratis/graciousness. A free gift isn't a free gift if it has to be earned. Whilst the wages of sin is death (wages (in the form of damnation) being something earned) the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. The gift is from God. And like any free gift, it only has to be accepted. Not earned. In order to accept or reject the 'manifestation' of the Holy Spirit, one has to have the Holy Spirit in the first place. And having the Holy Spirit is limited to those that are in Christ, ie: those who are saved. Works subsequent to receiving the Holy Spirit don't have salvatory/damnatory value. Neither do works prior to having the Holy Spirit have salvatory/damnatory value - all who have not the Holy Spirit are damned anyway. IOW you get the Holy Spirit/are saved when you are put into Christ.Good deeds/works/trying your best/giving money to the poor etc etc has nothing at all to do with getting saved. So all you loose-living but back-of-the-mind-worried-about-hell heathens out there can relax as far as that goes This message has been edited by iano, 27-Oct-2005 03:31 PM

I suppose the main problems I have with this oft-quoted passage are twofold:a) Good works are associated with the righteous of that there is no doubt. But what is not made clear here is whether righteousness is a consequence of good works or whether good works are a consequence of rightousness. I suggest that scripture indicates the latter. For example, Paul frequently makes comparisons between the righteous and the unrighteous and in Romans 8:8 we are told that those that are 'in the flesh' (ie: who are not in Christ) CANNOT please God. Good works please God, bad works displease God. But a person who is not of Christ cannot please God thus whatever they might consider their works to be, they are all seen as bad by God. For example "all your (own) rightousness are as filthy rags"Which would indicate that in order for works to be seen as good by God they must of a type. They must be viewed from a certain perspective. They must be done while a person is in Christ. But if a person is in Christ, we see from Romans 8:1 "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ.... (and what is the characteristic of these people?)...who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit).If no condemnation for a person because they are in Christ then a person in Christ cannot be a goat and thus condemned. So whilst the passage is ambiguous on it's own, Romans shows in Christ is where no condemnation lies. The question then would be I suppose, does one get in Christ by works or not..b) The passage includes Christ referring to the sheep doing stuff for "these brothers of mine" To be Christs brother one would have to the fathers (adopted) son. And only certain people are given the right to be called sons of God. This passage can't simply be seen in the light of general good works = salvation. The righteous (who are already adopted as sons) did stuff for other (adopted) sons. But when it comes to the goats there is no reference to brothers.For those reasons I reckon there is a bit more to this passage than that it is straightforward mechanism of salvation stuff