ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Sola Sciptura In The Bible

The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Is this a truth?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Jerald_Archer on 9/14/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



He also relied on the Oral Torah for such doctrines like Abraham's Bosom (Luke 16:19-31), which is no where mention or taught in Holy Scriptures but was part of Jewish Holy Tradition (the ancient Jewish Historian Josephus wrote a discourse concerning Hades, and it match up with what Jesus taught).
---Ignatius on 9/21/10

Is the Oral Torah validated when Jesus uses it?

I think not, because Jesus also rebuked their use of tradition in other passages of Scripture.

In a similar nammer, the Apostles using portions of the Book of Enoch does not validate the authorless Book of Enoch.

It simply means that there is truth in these other items, books or traditions, but that they do not contain ALL truth.
---Mark_Eaton on 9/22/10


" But when JESUS faced the Devil he did not appeal to contridictory traditions but to scripture. " (Samuel)

On the other hand, He did appeal to Holy Tradition (He followed Festal of Dedication, now called Hanakah, in John 10:22 and recognized Moses Seat in Matthew 23:1-3). He also relied on the Oral Torah for such doctrines like Abraham's Bosom (Luke 16:19-31), which is no where mention or taught in Holy Scriptures but was part of Jewish Holy Tradition (the ancient Jewish Historian Josephus wrote a discourse concerning Hades, and it match up with what Jesus taught).

We also see the appeal to Holy Oral Tradition in the writings of the Apostles.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/21/10


Rod4him-

Either way, one have to appeal to a extra biblical authority (source) to discover which books belong in the NT. Granted, many Christians were using the same books we have today in our NT, but there were debates in all parts of Christendom for centuries. For example, the East, as a whole, never accepted the Book of Revelation until the 5th or 6th century.

Even after the councils you alluded to, there were still debates, and took a while for the whole Church to finally accept the Father's decision concerning the canon of the NT. It is not as cut and dried as most would like to think.

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 9/21/10


God is perfect
His doctrine is perfect
ALL Men are imperfect
ALL Men's understanding is imperfect
ALL languages have imperfections.

We read the scriptures to understand God and his doctrine. Unfortunately men with faulty minds or biases wrote down that record and faulty men translated that record and now I, a faulty man read that translation. Even if it was perfect, I am not, and I need to have a certain level of willingness to be humble enough to realize that I am just a man and that if I am to use scripture as a club to beat down my brother, I may want to hold off for awhile until I can gain some more humility and more love of my fellow man and a better understanding of God's will.
---chris on 9/21/10


Glenn, Samuel, leej


Wonderful scripture, thoughts and teaching!

ALL backed up by the word of God- The Bible.

And that is how it should be.

Amen!
---ginger on 9/21/10




Christians believe that the Scripture(s), the inerrant word of God, is self authenticating, and sufficient to instruct, prove, and assure Christian truth. And that all doctrine and practices are to be confirmed or denied by the Word. We believe in (regula fidei) the authority and sufficiency of the Bible, and that tradition, or meditative contemplation, is to yield to it. We affirm the universal priesthood of believers who can understand the Bible's teaching through the Holy Spirits help. Psalm 119:105, John 20:31, 1Timothy 4:13-16, 2Timothy 3:16-17, 2Peter 1:19-21, 3:16.
p.s. Paul and Peter - yes, Bartholomew and Benedict - no.
---Glenn on 9/21/10


I like the term measuring stick. But I would add it is scripture Paul says that will make us wise.

2Ti 3:15 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.


2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Some will replace scripture with tradition. But when JESUS faced the Devil he did not appeal to contridictory traditions but to scripture.
---Samuel on 9/21/10


Yes, the Bible should always be a measuring stick or the standard for the church. The problem lies with those who fail to rightfully handle the word of truth putting their personal or denominational views above that of the Bible.

2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

In failing to rightfuly interpret the word of truth, you have those who believe one must observe holy days, and the Levitical dietary laws, etc. despite the fact that scripture is very clear on these issues.

Usually those types have other sources apart from the Bible for their doctrines.
---leej on 9/21/10


Amen Francis.
The word of God is a measuring stick.
It tells us if what is said by a man is true or not.
Try and test the spirit to see if it be true.
Spirit of discernment.

Let God be true.
God is NOT a man that he should lie.
If it does not measure up to scripture then it is not true.
---ginger on 9/21/10


The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Is this a truth?

True, scripture only is not taught in the bible.
The reason being God has called many prophets who did not have anything writen dwn in the bible.
But we can say " word of God only" SO that any new prophet who comes, must be consistant with the word of God already spoken
---francis on 9/21/10




//Who do you think canonized the Bible? The reason why you have 27 books in your NT ... is because you uphold the tradition of certain 4th century Fathers.//

"tradition of certain 4th century Father?" I think you are giving credit where none is due. That's like giving Galileo credit for the earth going around the sun. I suggest that "certain 4th century Fathers" discovered what was already happening, that most believers were alreading using those books.

Granted, the fact that believers were using those books could be called tradition, however, those "Fathers" didn't decide. As I recall it was about 383 representives of the churches that revealed which books they were using.
---Rod4Him on 9/21/10


You do too! Who do you think canonized the Bible? The reason why you have 27 books in your NT (in the order and names we have them today) is because you uphold the tradition of certain 4th century Fathers. Too bad you can't see that. Too bad you can't answer the questions I asked it.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/21/10

Not true. Not upholding traditions per say.
Teachings is a better word.
When Paul is talking about traditions in the NT you must remember that they did not have the NT for one thing and Paul is refering to the OT when he said this.
What many churches do is what the Pharisees did. They put there traditions first when Christ should be the corner stone and basis for ALL things.
---ginger on 9/21/10


Rod4Him, this very verse says there's a "tradition according to Christ."

I just had a English Major review the verse and your comment. You are mistaken. It does not say, "tradition according to Christ."

This is an example of words being added, so one doubts their own eyes. It says what it says.

I suggest to read the whole passage, "in Him, ...in Him, ...in Him,"

not in traditions of men.
---Rod4Him on 9/20/10


"The above verses seem to apply chiefly to the RCC and the Greek Orthodox Church." (mima)

Nay, it refers to the extra biblical and anti-biblical Protestant tradition of men called "sola Scriptura" and other Protestant innovations. You should know that by now mima. Shame on you for not knowing that!

".....you uphold your dogma handed down by men" (ginger)

You do too! Who do you think canonized the Bible? The reason why you have 27 books in your NT (in the order and names we have them today) is because you uphold the tradition of certain 4th century Fathers. Too bad you can't see that. Too bad you can't answer the questions I asked it.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/21/10


(Mark Eaton)-

Nay, we have the Apostolic Tradition (oral and written) in it's fullness. However, as the centuries went by, and heretics was attacking the Church, the Church had to make dogmatic statements and gather together (in the first Seven Holy Ecumenical Synods). These councils were not convened for the purpose of inventing new doctrine, or to create new churches, but rather functioned to preserve what Christ taught the apostles and corrected the spread of false teachings. They defined the Apostolic Tradition ("Holy Tradition is growing in expression, never in essence")

All the things you mention reflect Holy Tradition. Some canon laws deal more with the time they were written, though.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/21/10


Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

And where do we find the words of God save in the Bible? To me this speaks of sola scriptura.

One of our vice moderators of a denomination I recently resigned from declared that the Bible is not the word of God, that it is only a reference point.

Of course in rejecting the Bible, they were able to vote for those involved in sexual sin as clergy, deacons & elders.
---leej on 9/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


\\Col 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ"\\

Rod4Him, this very verse says there's a "tradition according to Christ."
---Cluny on 9/20/10


Thank you Mark Eaton, great verse,

Col 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ"

I am starting to wonder if RCC and Orthodox are cultish, if that's a word.

Another verse I ran into is, II Tim 3:5,"holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power, Avoid such men as these."

I think the RCC/Orthodox are bringing people into bondage. That doesn't mean all people involved with them are bad people.
---Rod4Him on 9/20/10


If you cut down the tree to try to recover the original sapling, you lose everything.
---Cluny on 9/20/10

Wait a minute there fella, you cannot have this both ways.

Either your Holy Tradition is the unchanged tradition handed down from the Apostles, or it is the ever-changing tradition of men that the Apostle Paul wrote about in this verse:

Col 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ"
---Mark_Eaton on 9/20/10


Mark 7:6"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7-Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8-For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9-And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

The above verses seem to apply chiefly to the RCC and the Greek Orthodox Church.
---mima on 9/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


If it is tainted with the enemies lies, then it is not for us.
---ginger on 9/18/10


Cluny, Igi,
You both missed this little tidbit didn't you?
Well, you should read and understand a person's post before you say anything.
I said "IF" it is tainted. That does mean conditional. I believe if Paul and Jude used them then they certainly examined the root first to be sure it was NOT tainted.

And Igi, For your information the Bible Does say no adding or taking away.
It is too bad that you uphold your dogma handed down by men other than what is told for us to do by God.
It is sad that you can't see that either.
---ginger on 9/20/10


John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
---micha9344 on 9/20/10


//People constantly appeal to "primitive Christianity"--but is this really a valid appeal?//

The Catholic/Orthodox constantly appeal to "the Jews do it," chanting, "the protestants have abuse issues," "the protestants called leaders bishop/pastor," and the protestants do this or that--but is this really a valid appeal?
---Rod4Him on 9/20/10


\\One of your Orthodox web sites says just this: "As the Church continues to live by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Tradition of the Church will continue to grow and develop"\\

People constantly appeal to "primitive Christianity"--but is this really a valid appeal?

Which is more perfect--the sapling or the full grown tree?

If you cut down the tree to try to recover the original sapling, you lose everything.
---Cluny on 9/20/10


Shop For Church Pews


there will be "faithful" men who will deliver the Apostolic Tradition, with no additions or subtraction.
---IGnatius on 9/18/10

Can you say without hesitation, there there has been no additions to the Holy Tradition since it was handed down by the Apostles?

I know you cannot, there have been additions along the way. There have been dogmatic decisions, iconographic traditions, and the canon laws have all been added into what you call Holy Tradition.

One of your Orthodox web sites says just this: "As the Church continues to live by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Tradition of the Church will continue to grow and develop"

These additions cause me to doubt Holy Tradition.
---Mark_Eaton on 9/20/10


Cluny, Ignatius:

According to your truth, the church fathers said not everything handed down by the Apostles was written in Scripture.

Specifically, writers in your Orthodox faith describe items like the following list as being Holy Tradition passed down from the Apostles: the method of baptism, the method of confessing your sins, the method of taking communion, the method of being married, forming the cross across the front of your chest, the blessing of the water for baptism, the three-fold denunciation and renunciation of Satan before baptism.

Is this correct? Are these items part of the Holy Tradition?
---Mark_Eaton on 9/20/10


"By the way, the Bible does say Gods word only. Do not add or take away- Check Revelations, and you will see." (ginger)

And I explained that before. Please go back to my posts and read what I wrote, which is rooted in Holy Scriptures. And please answer my questions towards you or admit that ou can not answer them. It is only fair.

"But that does not mean they should be used.
If it is tainted with the enemies lies, then it is not for us."

Too bad Saint Paul didn't follow your reasoning.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/19/10


\\But that does not mean they should be used.
If it is tainted with the enemies lies, then it is not for us.
---ginger on 9/18/1\\

St. Paul didn't hesistate to refer to pagan poets.

Nor did St. Jude scruple about referring to the Book of Enoch.

Did they sin thereby?
---Cluny on 9/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Even pagan poets can speak the Truth, and certain aspects of their writings can agree with Holy Tradition.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/18/10


But that does not mean they should be used.
If it is tainted with the enemies lies, then it is not for us.
---ginger on 9/18/10


Here are good things the Bible says about tradition:


Colossians 2:8which says that there IS a tradition after Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

2 Thessalonians 3:6

1 Corinthians 11:2KJV translators were fudging here, because the same Greek word they translated tradition elsewhere.

1 Cor 11:23This is the essence of tradition. In fact, the root of the word rendered tradition is the verb here for passed on.

1 Cor 11:34bIn other words, there are unwritten instructions he will deliver (tradition) orally.

2 Timothy 2:2Again, tradition to other faithful men.

2 John 12. 3 John 13St. John says that many of his instructions will NOT be written down.
---Cluny on 9/18/10


"It sounds like you are suggesting that pagan poets are part of the Holy Tradition because Paul used them." (Rod4him)

No. Not everything is part of Holy Tradition, only what the Church declares. However, in light of the fact that Saint Paul quoted from pagan poets (who spoke the truth nevertheless), alluded to Jewish Oral Holy Tradition (the Oral Torah was consider God's word by the Jews), and Church Oral Holy Tradition, one would have to be very silly and naive to believe that He upheld Sola Scriptura.

Even pagan poets can speak the Truth, and certain aspects of their writings can agree with Holy Tradition.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/18/10


"They involved extraneous interpretations and faulty applications of the OT, which were never the original teachings and practices of the Prophets in their Holy Tradition (Jesus and the Apostles gave the true interpretations of the OT). They were new interpretations and practices of the OT"

And I know another church that does this too. the Roman Catholic Church. And she will be judged for it too.

Look what happened to the jews for misinterpreting scripture. They missed their messiah. Lets Hope RCC changes course real soon or they will join the jews and miss the boat.
By the way, the Bible does say Gods word only. Do not add or take away- Check Revelations, and you will see.
---ginger on 9/18/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Rob,

No one said that the extra biblical tradition of certain 4th century Fathers concerning the canonization of the NT is anti-biblical tradition, for how can it be a anti-biblical tradition if the Bible NOWHERE tell us which books should be included in the Bible and which should be left out? All this is determine by extra biblical sources. Or do you believe that the Bible came down from the sky on a thunderbolt one day with God's signature on it and the inscription: "All these books are Holy Scripture. XOXO, God"?

ginger,

Please answer my questions. It is only fair that you do and not expect me to answer all your questions while ignoring my questions toward you.

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 9/18/10


"....the best intentions of man will fail and things will be distorted or lost unless they preserved by writing them down. " (Mark Eaton)

According to Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 2:2, among others, the Church will always teach the Truth, despite heretics appearing and there will be "faithful" men who will deliver the Apostolic Tradition, with no additions or subtraction.

FYI, even the written records can be distorted by heretics (2 Peter 3:15-16). According to Saint Peter and the Talmudic literature, the written doctrines from God were more susceptible, or just as susceptible, to spiritual corruption and distortion than oral doctrines are believed to be by Protestants.

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 9/18/10


To me, Sola Scriptura embodies the concept that the Bible, and the Bible only, is to be the final test of athority in all matters of religious doctrine. It is our ONLY common ground for such discussions. Otherwise, we are merely arguing one fallible man's opinion vs. another.

With this in mind, Isiah 8:20 does indeed teach Sola Scriptura.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony [Moses and the Prophets]: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
---jerry6593 on 9/18/10


EXTRA BIBLICAL and ANTI-BIBLICAL TRADITION OF MEN?
---Rob on 9/17/10

This is quite an interesting point.

Everything that we suggest about Sola Scriptura is anti-biblical or extra-biblical but yet Holy Tradition is not. Isn't that our point about Holy Tradition?

Seems like speaking with a forked tongue to me.
---Mark_Eaton on 9/18/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


We have written Scriptures that reflect aspects of Holy Tradition because God deemed it so. But God's word is not limited to the written records, as the Jews & Apostles believed.
---Ignatius on 9/17/10

I will use Scripture this time.

Many consider the new covenant to be described in Jeremiah 31. In that passage God says "

Jer 31: 33-34 "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them declares the LORD"

Where is Holy Tradition in this covenant?
---Mark_Eaton on 9/18/10


Why is it those of the Orthodox, with one side of their mouth say we received the New Testament from some Orthodox Council of Men and is to be followed, but with the other side of their mouth they say the new Testament EXTRA BIBLICAL and ANTI-BIBLICAL TRADITION OF MEN?
---Rob on 9/17/10


Ignatius, //And you just proven my point. If Saint Paul did indeed followed Sola Scriptura (as Mima falsely suggested), then he wouldn't have quoted pagan poets, nor will He have quoted or alluded to Jewish Oral Tradition (the Oral Torah, the Talmudic Literature ) (which WAS consider God's word by the Jews) or Holy Oral Tradition from the Church.//

I know I am looking through my own paradigm and can't shift it. It sounds like you are suggesting that pagan poets are part of the Holy Tradition because Paul used them.
---Rod4Him on 9/17/10


Jesus condemned "traditions of men", not Holy Tradition (as He even followed Tradition's doctrine of the Festival of Dedication, now called Hanakah, in John 10:22 and Moses Seat in Matthew 23:1-3). But what were these traditions? Extra Biblical? Nay. They involved extraneous interpretations and faulty applications of the OT, which were never the original teachings and practices of the Prophets in their Holy Tradition (Jesus and the Apostles gave the true interpretations of the OT). They were new interpretations and practices of the OT.

Some NT doctrines came from extra biblical Jewish Tradition: Life after death, Abraham's Bosom, Moses's Seat, the names and the amount of the magicians in Exodus 7:11,22, etc.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


it is the word that thru the holy spirit we are convicted,the good news about jesus and what he offers us all is what the bible is all about.The truth is God,jesus,and the holy spirit.
---tom2 on 9/17/10


"....everything that you and I need [is] in .... the Bible." (Mark Eaton)

Which is a extra (and anti) biblical tradition. Either way Mark Eaton, you can't get around the fact that you have to appeal to a extra biblical source to conclude which books belong in the NT (and the OT for that matter). I firmly believe that certain Fathers in the 4th century was guided by the Holy Spirit to canonized Holy Scriptures, and the Church recognized their extra biblical tradition as genuine (God-inspired) much later.

To your question: We have written Scriptures that reflect aspects of Holy Tradition because God deemed it so. But God's word is not limited to the written records, as the Jews & Apostles believed.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/17/10


So, igi, you are saying the ot is not scripture and neither are the books of the new testament? That explains a whole lot. SO, tell me then what is the word of GOD, to you? by the way the scripture i gave is in the new test. not old. maybe if you had them you could read them instead of trying to insult people, putting the commands of men before the ones from God. Sounds like your church is built on sinking sand to me.
---ginger on 9/17/10


ginger, #2

4) That you should only have 27 books (in order and names of books we have them) in the New Testament is a extra biblical tradition derived from certain Fathers of the fourth century, which later became the "official" Canon of New Testament. What do you do with that?

5) Protestant's Old Testament, however, came from Jewish Pharisaical extra biblical tradition. What do you do with that?

Why do you follow these extra biblical traditions (traditions that was not founded by Jesus Christ or the Apostles)?

Sola Scriptura (every variation of it) is a extra biblical and anti-biblical tradition of men promulgated by Protestantism. Don't defend traditions of men ginger!

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 9/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


"Paul quoted inscriptions, "To the unknown God," and he also quoted some of the Greek's poets. Does that make the inscriptions and poets inspired of God? and therefore they are Holy Tradition? I don't think so." (rod4him)

And you just proven my point. If Saint Paul did indeed followed Sola Scriptura (as Mima falsely suggested), then he wouldn't have quoted pagan poets, nor will He have quoted or alluded to Jewish Oral Tradition (the Oral Torah, the Talmudic Literature ) (which WAS consider God's word by the Jews) or Holy Oral Tradition from the Church.

Sola Scriptura is false based on these premises.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/17/10


JESUS confronted those who had made tradtion above the Scripture.

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The point of contention was a Jewish tradition written by the church leaders who stated it was the will of GOD. They also taught these were unwritten traditions handed down from Moses. Much the same as you believe your traditions are given.
---Samuel on 9/17/10


ginger,

1) As far as 2 Timothy 3:15, I take the verse what for what it teach, and do not teach.

2) The verses you are alluded to is found in the Torah, and if this proves Sola Scriptura, then you should burn certain Old Testament Books and the New Testament. The Command in Revelation is speaking about that particular book.

3) I never said the Apostles never quoted or alluded to certain Old Testament books as Scriptures, however, I have made this very clear in another blog, the Apostles quoted or alluded to Jewish Oral Holy Tradition, extra biblical Tradition from the Church, and used extra biblical OT books (which was considered Scriptures by some) (Saint Jude for example) What do you do with those?

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 9/17/10


Another extra biblical tradition of men (cf. 2 Thes 2:15). Where did the Apostles told you which books to accept as Scripture?
---Ignatius on 9/16/10

My faith is not in the Apostles, my faith is in God.

I have faith in God that HE wrote and preserved everything that you and I need in the Books we know as the Bible. I beleive He has the wisdom to know that even the best intentions of man will fail and things will be distorted or lost unless they preserved by writing them down.

Answer this. If Holy Tradition is so important why do we have a written Bible and why does God write His laws in our heart?
---Mark_Eaton on 9/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Ignatius, //Jesus Christ and the Apostles did not believe the Old Testament texts was the only source of doctrine, but either quoted, followed or alluded to Holy Oral Tradition, from both the Church and Jewish Tradition, and used extra biblical sources.//

Paul quoted inscriptions, "To the unknown God," and he also quoted some of the Greek's poets. Does that make the inscriptions and poets inspired of God? and therefore they are Holy Tradition? I don't think so.

BTW, I appreciate many of the "Church Father's" writings, however, I don't think they are valid for scripture, but they are useful for inspiration and instruction, being aware of many of their antisemitic statements.
---Rod4Him on 9/17/10


the problem with SCRIPTURE ONLY or BIBLE ONLY is that is limits the word of God to what has alredy been written, and makes it imposible to accept a new prophet. The bible says WORD OF GOD ONLY, I am not sure that the word of God can ALWAYS ( I AM SAYING ALWAYS) be limited to the bible.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:


these vision, dreams, and prophecies may not all be in the bible, Then what?
---francis on 9/17/10


Okay Ignatius, what do you do with the scripture from Paul that states
"ALL scripture is good for...."

And the command from God through John in Revelations NOT to add to scripture?

Do we throw these commands away?

And you are very wrong, actually the Apostles DID utilize the OT very much. They quote from it all the time.

The Church of Christ should be built upon Christ and what HE says for us to do and what traditions to follow, what doctrines to build what to teach , etc.

How do you explain away the fact that the Bible tells us this?

Why would a person follow doctrine that is not built upon Christ?
He is the Rock not a man.
---ginger on 9/17/10


Jerald_Archer: You also misunderstand the Evangelical Position, and should study its truths. Catholics tend to engage in circular reason - i.e. the Pope speaking excathedra, or He with the Bishops putting forth doctrine are infallible because they are doing so. You ignore doctrinal changes (even in those that were once pronounced infallible) over the centuries, accepting only the latest. You eisegete passages to fit your belief. Tradition to Romanists means that if enough of you believe something for a sufficient period of time, a Pope declares it as true. Christians do not believe that God is using a reprobate minor antichrist to make his pronouncements, Matthew 15:1-14, Mark 7:6-16, Galatians 4:1-11, Colossians 2:8-23.
---Glenn on 9/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


"only Scripture is accepted in matters of doctrine" (Mark Eaton)

Another extra biblical, and anti-biblical tradition of men. Even a careful student of the Bible will know that Jesus Christ and the Apostles did not believe the Old Testament texts was the only source of doctrine, but either quoted, followed or alluded to Holy Oral Tradition, from both the Church and Jewish Tradition, and used extra biblical sources (i.e., Acts 20:35 & 2 Tim 2:8 being two of many examples).

"I accept that valid traditions given by the Apostles are recorded in Scripture."

Another extra biblical tradition of men (cf. 2 Thes 2:15). Where did the Apostles told you which books to accept as Scripture?

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/16/10


Jerald_Archer, yes, that is the truth.
---Eloy on 9/16/10


\\Bruce, I speak for every real Christian about nonChristian words fabricated by nonChristians in order to impose nonChristian teachings upon people.\\

For once, you're right, Eloy.

Sola scriptura is a NON-Christian teaching, and it's not held by the Apostolic pre-Reformation Churches.

These REAL Christians don't accept it.
---Cluny on 9/16/10


did jesus not say that scripture must be fullfilled?so jesus knew that at the time the old testament was the inspired written word,actually scripture states jesus is the word.
---tom2 on 9/16/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Glenn,

I don't understand what you mean by replace in my proposition of 9/15 "Catholic" with "Christian". Be more specific. Thanks.
---Jerald_Archer on 9/16/10


By the way, the protestant position has no authority on the matter to make such an authoritative statement on interpretation of Scripture. Only the Magisterum of the Church can interpret Scripture properly, as they have the intelligence and authority to do so. Saves a great deal of confusion and breeds less Jim Jones and David Koresh characters for unwary Christians to follow. The whole idea of SS is un-biblical, but "bible-believing" Christians do it anyway--it is a self refuting doctrine. Where is the logic?
---Jerald_Archer on 9/16/10


Bruce, I speak for every real Christian about nonChristian words fabricated by nonChristians in order to impose nonChristian teachings upon people. I suspect the term was manufactured and instituted by idolaters as is the subjugation and misappropriating of Jesus' title "Father" and "Papa" to sinfully used for religious idolaters, and the false and nonChristian terms "immaculate conception" and "purgatory" and the blasphemous term "mother of God", etc. However it is a free world, and if sinners desire to follow blind guides, and believe in falsehood, then that is their free choice to fall into the ditch.
---Eloy on 9/16/10


1/2
Sola: scriptura, fide, gratia, Christus, Deo gloria vs. Sola Ecclesia Romanus.
Jerald Archer: Please replace Catholic with Christian in your proposition of 9/15. The Protestant position does not say that there is no other means of revelation, but that "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture". And is "the final authority for all matters of faith and morals because of its inspiration, authority, clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency." The Roman Church uses the three legged stool - scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium determines scriptural meaning.
---Glenn on 9/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


"It has pleanty of meaning to Christians who view the bible as the only written revelation of God and the sole authority" (Bruce5656)

But such a notion is a extra biblical, and anti-biblical tradition. Cluny is right. Those who abide in this tradition do not follow it's tenets to the letter. If this were not so, Protestants will not believe that the New Testament should only contain 27 books (in order and names of books we have them) as that itself is a extra biblical tradition derived from certain Fathers of the fourth century, which later became the "official" Canon of New Testament.

Protestant's Old Testament, however, came from Jewish Pharisaical extra biblical tradition.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/15/10


Eloy:

You said: The word "sola scriptura" is a NonChristian word, and has zero meaning to Christians.

Sola Scriptura is Latin for by scripture alone, and whatever you call it, is the doctrine that God's wisdom is in the Bible (which the Bible teaches), and in the Bible alone (something it does NOT teach). Whether this is true or not is an important issue that IS important to Christians.

Many other theological words and phrases are not written in the Bible, but are also of importance to us because their subjects are discussed, even if not in those exact words. For example, "substitutionary atonement", "vicarious substitution", "theophany", "rapture", etc.
---StrongAxe on 9/15/10


Ignatius, I was referring to Eloy's comment. It seems these posts are out of order or something.
---Jerald_Archer on 9/15/10


2/2
It is difficult to use Biblical verses as proof text when both parties dispute the meaning of the same. 1Corinthians 11:2, 2Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6 > G386 Paradosis ordinances / traditions - not the Jewish law here, but instruction given by the Apostles. 1Timothy 3:14-15 go together. 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Peter 3:16-17 speaks against any false doctrine, including false papistic doctrine. {Matthew 4:4, 15:3, 6, Mark 7:7-9, John 10:35, 12:48, Acts 17:11-12, Colossians 2:8, 2Timothy 2:15-16, 3:16-17, 4:2-5, 2Peter 1:20-21}.
p.s. The Lord certainly, and the Apostles probably, knew that there would be more scripture written other than the Tanakh when 2Timothy 3 was written.
---Glenn on 9/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


I think a definition is in order.

What is "Sola Scriptura"?

If it means that a person only accepts what is written in the Bible, then I doubt anyone here believes this way. I certainly do not. There is truth in nature and truth outside of the Bible that I can accept when it does cross Scripture.

If it means that only Scripture is accepted in matters of doctrine, righteousness, and the spiritual life, then I agree with this position.

I accept that valid traditions given by the Apostles are recorded in Scripture. When Paul said in 1 Cor. to be imitators of him, he was but an imitator of Christ. All valid traditions must point to back to Christ, otherwise they will cross Scripture.
---Mark_Eaton on 9/15/10


Mima You say "Sola Scriptura is taught in second Timothy 3:16 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

That is nonsense!

It says all scripture is useful, for certain things. That's OK, but it does not say that nothing else is useful.

And of course Ignatious is right, Paul was referring to the Scriptures as he knew them (which could conceivably include the Gospels or one or two of them) but not to his own explanatory teaching and exortation.

Do you rellay think Paul was so cynical as to use such circular argument to call his won writngs God given.
---alan8566_of_uk on 9/15/10


Now that makes no sense.
---Jerald_Archer on 9/15/10


"Sola Scriptura is taught in second Timothy 3:16" (mima)

Where is "Sola Scriptura" in this verse? I don't see it. Where is "sufficient" in this verse? If this verse proves Sola Scriptura, then you should burn the New Testament, as Saint Paul was referring to the Old Testament texts, given the context.

It is very silly and naive to believe Saint Paul taught Sola Scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16, in light of the fact that he quoted Holy (Oral) Tradition, from both the Church and Jewish Oral Holy Tradition.

It is clear Mima, that you have been sold into the extra biblical, and anti-biblical traditions of Protestantism.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


Eloy: "The word "sola scriptura" is a NonChristian word, and has zero meaning to Christians."

Speak for yourself. It has pleanty of meaning to Christians who view the bible as the only written revelation of God and the sole authority on apiritual matters.
---Bruce5656 on 9/15/10


I've noticed there are a lot of people here who themselves don't really believe in Sola Scriptura.

For example, some here insist that "wine" in Psalm 104 (Hebrew) means the Holy Spirit, when the context clearly says that wine comes from the EARTH, whereas the Holy Spirit comes from Heaven, proceding from the Father as Jesus Himself says.
---Cluny on 9/15/10


The word "sola scriptura" is a NonChristian word, and has zero meaning to Christians.
---Eloy on 9/15/10


Mima,

Easy. You have a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church and Her teachings. Sola Scriptura is the topic here. Read (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16) and try to research the truths of the Catholic Church--Catholics are tired of people being ignorant of the truths of the Church.
---Jerald_Archer on 9/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Sola Scriptura is more taught than the worship of Mary! Sola Scriptura is more taught that a belief in purgatory! Sola Scriptura is more taught than making the sign of the cross!

Sola Scriptura is taught in second Timothy 3:16 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
---mima on 9/15/10


Yes. All variation of Sola Scriptura (ie.., how a Lutherean understand Sola Scriptura is a little different than how a Baptist or a Evangelical understands it) is a extra biblical, and anti-biblical tradition. A careful student of Ancient Judaism, Ancient Christianity, and Holy Scriptures will know that.

I posted a couple of replies refuting such notion in the "Martin Luther's Reformation" blog.

The Sadducees held to a type of Sola Scriptura, which Protestants later borrowed and twink it.

Orthodoxy does not teach it. It has never been part of the Church' Apostolic Tradition.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/15/10


God gave us what we need to read. Sure & no doubt that there is more info, But the world would Not be able to contain the books.
---Lawrence on 9/15/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.