Christians: Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?

[exchemist]

Yes it does! Believing in a literal interpretation is a major part of the tradition that the literal scripture takes precedence over other knowledge and interpretations.

More citations to follow

I look forward to your citations, then.

My understanding is that literalism largely appeared in the c.19th, some 300 years after sola scriptura became the doctrinal policy of many Protestant churches. Today there seem to be plenty of examples of sola scriptura churches that do not preach biblical literalism, for example Lutherans and Presbyterians.

 

[leov]

Somebody please tell me that Jesus was not an advocate of “by scripture alone”...? How many times did he say...”it is written”.
How many times did Jesus and his apostles quote scripture?

If we don’t base our beliefs on scripture, then whose ideas are we advocating?

Jesus was talking about good consciousness , AGAPE and worship in Spirit and truth, about exceeding consciousness in the Book, surely He referred to to the Book as common ground and foundation. Spirit is still here. We hardly understand the Book.

 

[shunyadragon]

I look forward to your citations, then.

My understanding is that literalism largely appeared in the c.19th, some 300 years after sola scriptura became the doctrinal policy of many Protestant churches. Today there seem to be plenty of examples of sola scriptura churches that do not preach biblical literalism, for example Lutherans and Presbyterians.

There are many variations of belief in Sola Scriptura and the Lutherans are divided as to literalism and Sola Scriptura. The original basis for 'Sola Scriptura' the Bible is the 'only authority,' which puts science in the back seat. The origin of Sola Scriptura is the Church Fathers. Modern variations represent variations and compromise to make 'things fit.'

From: Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers

1. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202)

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3.1.1)

2. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–235) [in defending the truth of the Trinity against the heretic Praxeas:]

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. . . . All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11)

3. Hippolytus (d. 235)

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn. (Against Heresies, 9)

4. Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 265):

We did not evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures. (Cited from Eusebius, Church History, 7.24.7–9)

5. Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373) [After outlining the books of the Bible, Athanasius wrote:]

These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7)

6. Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) [After defending the doctrine of the Holy Spirit]:

We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say. (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff)

7. John Chrysostom (344–407)

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things; which may we all obtain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.” (Homily on 2 Corinthians, 13.4)

8. Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me. (The Good of Widowhood, 2)

Augustine (again):

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (Augustine, Letters, 148.15)

Clearly, the doctrine of sola Scriptura was championed by Christian leaders long before the Reformation.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Somebody please tell me that Jesus was not an advocate of “by scripture alone”...? How many times did he say...”it is written”.
How many times did Jesus and his apostles quote scripture?

If we don’t base our beliefs on scripture, then whose ideas are we advocating?

Clearly,

Jesus 'listening seminar', the parable of the soils (aka parable of the sower) is about persevering with the word and bearing fruit.

In John 8:31, Jesus says you are truly his disciple if you 'keep his word' and you will 'know the truth' and 'the truth will set you free

and of course, Jesus famous quote of Moses to the devil when tempted to make bread out of stones breaking his fast: "Man does not live by bread alone...." but what does he say we live by? ".... but by every word that comes from the mouth of God'

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I just wanted to note that knowledge of God doesn't come through reading Bible or listening a preacher it is the second hand knowledge, it may just good for a start.

This a more modern view of understanding and interpreting the Bible, but as previously cited Sola Scriptura and literal interpretation of the Bible make the same assumption that the Bible is literally true, and the only reliable source of knowledge, and every other source of knowledge must agree with the scripture.

 

[leov]

This a more modern view of understanding and interpreting the Bible, but as previously cited Sola Scriptura and literal interpretation of the Bible make the same assumption that the Bible is literally true, and the only reliable source of knowledge, and every other source of knowledge must agree with the scripture.

Scripture is a collection basically resting on opinion and authority of Catholic Church. Reading information through spiritual facilities is the most ancient sources of knowledge, in oral and later written form, which is a result of recording spiritual information in limited ways.

 

[halbhh]

Christians:

Is Sola Scriptura biblical?

Or is it a tradition?

Can easily become a man-made tradition (and will in any church for many at the minimum). I think it was originally meant to merely say (in nutshell 2 word phrase) that anything a church does ought in every way to conform to the revealed will of God in scriptures. Of course, that's true. But....in practice these doctrinaire approaches led people into cul-de-sacs, when they should instead be continuing on the path that is always...more...complex than our thinking, by nature. To follow Christ.

One important problem with doctrines (attempts to fill in extra things or to redefine scripture) in modern times (and probably for previous times) is people will tend to invent a doctrine out of a few verses, by partial reading -- because of overconfidence in their own minds, their own understandings -- and end up selecting out verses and passages away from the entire whole letters/books they come from, and manufacturing a new meaning (inadvertently).

And there is an even more serious problem. Doctrines are never a replacement for the deeper fullness of scripture. Not even doctrines where all pieces are true.

Even true doctrines are doing more harm than good, typically.

They give people a false sense of sufficient understanding or...of having fulfilled the call to listen to Christ.

By nature. A doctrine is inevitably going to make many feel they can just ignore anything else Christ said -- they feel like the doctrine is preached, so it must be complete (which no doctrine can be), so the Word can be ignored.

Trying to reduce, simplify, add -- all of these are harmful. Ergo, doctrines are harmful by nature in several ways. And that's not about only 'protestant doctrines' but about all varieties. Instead of doctrine, we are pulled at times (and the Father actually said we should) listen to Christ. It's a very different way. But it's the way the Father said for us to do.

 

[halbhh]

Exactly. So it is a matter of tradition, in Protestanism, from Luther onward, to take this view.

The bible writers did not say, anywhere, that the sole authority comes from scripture. In fact Christ himself gave authority to his disciples, according to the gospels. And it is the apostolic succession of the priesthood that the church relied on, up to the Reformation, as a complementary source of doctrinal authority to that of scripture. This was perverted and abused by the church hierarchy of course, which gave Luther the impetus for his corrective action.

Ah, that's true, but...to me it's yet more complex. Of course, generally in the beginning the early church only had what we call the Old Testament scriptures of course, and so new converts could only test what was being said against those old covenant scriptures (as the Bereans did for instance), and eventually they would have letters (epistles), but generally they just had direct listening to people telling of Christ and his gospel. But this is beside the main thing. When we read (or reread) what Christ said, we do find quite a few places where we are being told of the essential, or primary, place of the word (the scripture, even as it is being put down still in new books at that time). For instance, the striking moment in Matthew chapter 4, that we cannot really live by just all the natural goods of the world, by only 100% of all the necessities and comforts and good things of the world. They are not enough, and instead we must "live" by "every word from the mouth of God". And that's only one instance (though a helpfully direct one ).

 

[metis]

Can easily become a man-made tradition (and will in any church for many at the minimum). I think it was originally meant to merely say (in nutshell 2 word phrase) that anything a church does ought in every way to conform to the revealed will of God in scriptures. Of course, that's true. But....in practice these doctrinaire approaches led people into cul-de-sacs, when they should instead be continuing on the path that is always...more...complex than our thinking, by nature. To follow Christ.

One important problem with doctrines (attempts to fill in extra things or to redefine scripture) in modern times (and probably for previous times) is people will tend to invent a doctrine out of a few verses, by partial reading -- because of overconfidence in their own minds, their own understandings -- and end up selecting out verses and passages away from the entire whole letters/books they come from, and manufacturing a new meaning (inadvertently).

And there is an even more serious problem. Doctrines are never a replacement for the deeper fullness of scripture. Not even doctrines where all pieces are true.

Even true doctrines are doing more harm than good, typically.

They give people a false sense of sufficient understanding or...of having fulfilled the call to listen to Christ.

By nature. A doctrine is inevitably going to make many feel they can just ignore anything else Christ said -- they feel like the doctrine is preached, so it must be complete (which no doctrine can be), so the Word can be ignored.

Trying to reduce, simplify, add -- all of these are harmful. Ergo, doctrines are harmful by nature in several ways. And that's not about only 'protestant doctrines' but about all varieties. Instead of doctrine, we are pulled at times (and the Father actually said we should) listen to Christ. It's a very different way. But it's the way the Father said for us to do.

To a degree I agree with you, but then to another degree I don't.

Within the Gospel, Jesus is asked questions, which he responded to with answers. After he died, much the same happened with the Apostles-- questions lead to answers, right, wrong, or partially both.

The early Church, after the Apostles were dead, continued on doing much the same, and this was necessitated especially dealing with the application of teachings, but also sometimes even the basic teachings themselves needed to be reconfirmed, especially when faced with "heresies".

IMO, the importance for us is to not let the "trees" of doctrine interfere with the "woods" of Jesus' most basic message, namely the love and compassion for God and all humankind, and us acting on this love and compassion.

 

[halbhh]

To a degree I agree with you, but then to another degree I don't.

Within the Gospel, Jesus is asked questions, which he responded to with answers. After he died, much the same happened with the Apostles-- questions lead to answers, right, wrong, or partially both.

The early Church, after the Apostles were dead, continued on doing much the same, and this was necessitated especially dealing with the application of teachings, but also sometimes even the basic teachings themselves needed to be reconfirmed, especially when faced with "heresies".

IMO, the importance for us is to not let the "trees" of doctrine interfere with the "woods" of Jesus' most basic message, namely the love and compassion for God and all humankind, and us acting on this love and compassion.

Well, I'm not thinking of 'doctrine' (when I use the term) as something like just quoting some verses or a very good direct paraphrase of scripture, of course (and I do know that some few consider such 'doctrines', so the word isn't necessarily precisely defined). I'm using more the...street meaning of the term, the way a typical non-theologian would use the term, as meaning something more esoteric (say for example stuff from Calvinism famously, stuff like 'irresistible grace' or whatever else they invent), instead of simply the direct paraphrase of scripture without added ideas.

So, I agree with all you say here. I'd totally agree also that 'doctrines' like the Trinity were necessary because of wrong ideas being spread especially in a time before printing made scriptures widely available. The Apostles' Creed is useful, valuable, even if only as confessing faith aloud. A doctrine can be a useful way of countering a wrong idea in just a brief wording. But more ideally, I'd want, and I'd hope, we can instead directly quote the scripture that refutes the wrong idea, instead of the less-convincing abstraction or doctrine thing.

 

[Cooky]

Somebody please tell me that Jesus was not an advocate of “by scripture alone”...? How many times did he say...”it is written”.
How many times did Jesus and his apostles quote scripture?

If we don’t base our beliefs on scripture, then whose ideas are we advocating?

Deeje, Jesus promised us a "Holy Spirit" John 14:26, but he never mentions anything about a "book".

Do you assume the Holy Spirit is the bible? Or are you simply drawing comparisons between Jesus using the Tanakh, and Sola Scriptura Protestants using scripture because it's convenient now, since Protestants have abandoned the Holy Church and her teachings?

 

[exchemist]

Ah, that's true, but...to me it's yet more complex. Of course, generally in the beginning the early church only had what we call the Old Testament scriptures of course, and so new converts could only test what was being said against those old covenant scriptures (as the Bereans did for instance), and eventually they would have letters (epistles), but generally they just had direct listening to people telling of Christ and his gospel. But this is beside the main thing. When we read (or reread) what Christ said, we do find quite a few places where we are being told of the essential, or primary, place of the word (the scripture, even as it is being put down still in new books at that time). For instance, the striking moment in Matthew chapter 4, that we cannot really live by just all the natural goods of the world, by only 100% of all the necessities and comforts and good things of the world. They are not enough, and instead we must "live" by "every word from the mouth of God". And that's only one instance (though a helpfully direct one ).

But who says the word of God comes only in the form of written words in the scriptures?

The traditional, pre-Reformation view was that God spoke not only through the scriptures, but also through mystical experiences, through various signs and miracles, through responses people felt they had to prayers, and through the considered authority of the the successors to St Peter and the Apostles, a succession conferred through the sacrament of ordination.

This is a far more active and dynamic view of God communicating than relying solely on what is in effect a fossilised text from long ago. So one can see its appeal. But of course, sadly, it was open to abuse and was abused.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, Jesus promised us a "Holy Spirit" John 14:26, but he never mentions anything about a "book".

If you read John 14:26 more carefully, you will see what Jesus promised...

"But the Advocate, [helper] the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you."

The holy spirit was going to teach them everything and recall to their minds what he had said. To me this is not suggesting any teachings apart from what Jesus taught, but as a helper, the holy spirit would impart a broader understanding of what Jesus had already taught.
"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." (John 16:12-13)

The son of God was sent to impart this knowledge of the mystery concerning the Kingdom that was not well understood up until that time (Ephesians 6:19).....so the apostles and disciples gained an understanding of how the kingdom was going to benefit everyone in the future. It gave them conviction that they had been chosen to rule with Christ in heaven, and the boldness to preach the Christian message...."the good news of God's Kingdom" (Matthew 24:14).....unfortunately for the majority, that message was lost when 'Christendom' emerged from post-apostolic times. Jesus and his apostles foretold that an apostasy was to come after the death of the apostles.....most in Christendom do not believe that it ever happened. But this apostate Christianity is now the only one they know. So, if you ask anyone in the multitude of "Christian" denominations exactly what God's Kingdom" is...they are hard pressed to give you an exact answer. Their vague notions are not even close to the truth.

Do you assume the Holy Spirit is the bible?

Not at all...I believe what the apostle Paul said...
" All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
That makes scripture the basis for all beliefs IMO.

Or are you simply drawing comparisons between Jesus using the Tanakh, and Sola Scriptura Protestants using scripture because it's convenient now, since Protestants have abandoned the Holy Church and her teachings?

Well, to put it bluntly, the Catholic Church was the first apostate church....the 'mother' of many daughters who all carried her erroneous doctrines with them when they 'left home'. Like mother like daughters.....all have abandoned the teachings of Christ in favor of their man-made doctrines. This was the very thing Jesus castigated the Pharisees for.

Isaiah had prophesied this...
"So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:

8 ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.’”

Jesus said the same thing would happen again. Satan was to sow "weeds" among the "wheat". These would "grow together" until it was time for the "harvest".

"Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers". (Matthew 13:36-41)

All indications are that we are at 'the end of the age'.....Christ is due to come as judge of all the world. So the falling away of Christianity was to be expected. It took place just as he said it would, now fractured into thousands of disunited sects......nothing like what he started.

Would we see Jesus or his apostles dressed like this?...Where do those hats come from?

Did any apostle become a Pope, sitting on a golden throne and pass his position on to others?...

Or was there ever a command to build opulent temples when their brothers in the world were living in poverty? Would you see Jesus in this setting?

Did God save Notre Dame?

Jesus would have rejected all such displays of opulence. He was born poor and he died poor. He constantly warned about the deceptive and corrupting power of riches. All of his apostles were humble men and never taught that God required any of that. Yet Catholic people have grown up thinking that this is Christianity......but it never was. Protestantism thought it had got rid of the unscriptural doctrines taught by Catholicism, but the truth is, they did not purge enough. They retained the core teachings, none of which are supported in scripture IMO.

The apostles Paul and Peter also warned about this inevitable falling away....(2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:1; 2 Peter 2:20-22)

Why does Christendom pretend that it never happened?

 

[Cooky]

If you read John 14:26 more carefully, you will see what Jesus promised...

"But the Advocate, [helper] the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you."

To me this is not suggesting any teachings apart from what Jesus taught, but as a helper, the holy spirit would impart a broader understanding of what Jesus had already taught.

...Then why is the word *and* in there, separating two different things?

Yet still, no mention of the book anywhere. But the Holy Spirit, yes.

 

[Cooky]

The Holy Spirit is mentioned, arguably, between at least 90 to 126 times in the New Testament... The mentioning of the Scriptures by Jesus, or anyone, is 0 times.

...Why?

 

[Cooky]

Well, to put it bluntly, the Catholic Church was the first apostate church....the 'mother' of many daughters who all carried her erroneous doctrines with them when they 'left home'. Like mother like daughters.....all have abandoned the teachings of Christ in favor of their man-made doctrines. This was the very thing Jesus castigated the Pharisees for.

Isaiah had prophesied this...
"So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:

8 ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.’”

Jesus said the same thing would happen again. Satan was to sow "weeds" among the "wheat". These would "grow together" until it was time for the "harvest".

"Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers". (Matthew 13:36-41)

All indications are that we are at 'the end of the age'.....Christ is due to come as judge of all the world. So the falling away of Christianity was to be expected. It took place just as he said it would, now fractured into thousands of disunited sects......nothing like what he started.

Would we see Jesus or his apostles dressed like this?...Where do those hats come from?

Did any apostle become a Pope, sitting on a golden throne and pass his position on to others?...

Or was there ever a command to build opulent temples when their brothers in the world were living in poverty? Would you Jesus in this setting?

Did God save Notre Dame?

Jesus would have rejected all such displays of opulence. He was born poor and he died poor. He constantly warned about the deceptive and corrupting power of riches. All of his apostles were humble men and never taught that God required any of that. Yet Catholic people have grown up thinking that this is Christianity......but it never was. Protestantism thought it had got rid of the unscriptural doctrines taught by Catholicism, but the truth is, they did not purge enough. They retained the core teachings, none of which are supported in scripture IMO.

The apostles Paul and Peter also warned about this inevitable falling away....(2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:1; 2 Peter 2:20-22)

Why does Christendom pretend that it never happened?

You'll have to excuse me for dismissing your anecdotal evidence.

 

[Deeje]

...Then why is the word *and* in there, separating two different things?

Yet still, no mention of the book anywhere. But the Holy Spirit, yes.

LOL...is this a "blind Freddy" thing?

The Bible is the only source we have for the teachings of Jesus Christ.....and the OT was the basis for all that he taught......The Bible is the only book that gives us a history of God's dealings with Israel....it provides all that we believe about Jesus and the role of the Jews as descendants of Abraham, in providing the lineage for the Messiah......yet you somehow think it is unnecessary?
Could it be because your beliefs are not found in it?

When I was a church-goer in Christendom, I was appalled when I found out how much of what I was taught was man-made rubbish.....none of it is taught in scripture.

You'll have to excuse me for dismissing your anecdotal evidence.

Makes no difference to me if you accept it or reject it.....you have been informed, which makes it now impossible for you to claim ignorance. Denying the obvious is really not going to get anyone anywhere.

If you think that is merely anecdotal, then you are more indoctrinated than you think I am....can you answer my questions honestly? How does Roman Catholicism even remotely resemble first century Christianity? They are poles apart.

 

[whirlingmerc]

This a more modern view of understanding and interpreting the Bible, but as previously cited Sola Scriptura and literal interpretation of the Bible make the same assumption that the Bible is literally true, and the only reliable source of knowledge, and every other source of knowledge must agree with the scripture.

If you mean true 'in the sense of the literature' then yes 'literally true'

Of course often the Bible presents itself as 'the real true story' and it appears that is the sense intended to convey. The gospels are conveyed as largely eyewitness testimony in many places for example.

Moses speaks face to face with God for 40 years and writes the first 5 books. That conveys a strength of inspiration and a foundational soundness to rely on - in the sense of the literature.

Sometimes figurative as well

 

[Cooky]

The Bible is the only source we have for the teachings of Jesus Christ.....and the OT was the basis for all that he taught......The Bible is the only book that gives us a history of God's dealings with Israel....it provides all that we believe about Jesus and the role of the Jews as descendants of Abraham, in providing the lineage for the Messiah......yet you somehow think it is unnecessary?

I haven't said the bible is unnecessary though, just that Sola Scriptura, being a man-made tradition, is.

There is a better way to understand Jesus and Gods dealings with Israel, and the role of the Jews, which is through the Church -- guided and protected by the Holy Spirit... The same Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ told us about, that was mentioned in the New Testament between 90 and 126 times, with the bible having not been mentioned at all.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I haven't said the bible is unnecessary though, just that Sola Scriptura, being a man-made tradition, is.

There is a better way to understand Jesus and Gods dealings with Israel, and the role of the Jews, which is through the Church -- guided and protected by the Holy Spirit... The same Holy Spirit that Christ promised us, that was mentioned in the bible between 90 and 126 times.

I do think one must seriously consider the views of the church guided by the Holy Spirit
and that includes reforming the church when it wanders form the gospel with clarity.

But which is higher? the church is under the word. The word is not under the church.