Christians: Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?

[Scott C.]

Included among his teachings are the many references he made to the Hebrew scriptures. I have no doubt that God has preserved his word exactly as he wanted it preserved. Despite thousands of years and many attempts to destroy it, God has seen to it that all who are alive in this "time of the end" can read his word and make their decisions about who and what they worship....and why. There were no foretold additions from self-proclaimed prophets. The Bible is the complete word of God. It takes us from creation, to 1,000 years into the future.....what need is there for additions to it, especially when there is no mention of any prophets still to come after Jesus?



Many seem to have that opinion, but it is not based on fact, nor is it based on the opinion that the KJV is a superior translation...which exhibits many mistranslations biased towards Christendom's own doctrines.....the trinity, and hellfire being the most outstanding examples of this.

You are welcome to post what you believe are mistranslations from the NWT and we would be happy to discuss them and compare them with the KJV....?

I'm not looking to debate if your vesion of the Bible is superior to the KJV or if the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I'm making a point that Sola Scriptura seems to be ambigiuous and means different things to different people. Some Christians declare themselves as Sola Scriptura, while others do not. Catholics do not, as they accept Catholic tradition as equally valid as the written word. For them, God communicates true doctrine via both the scriptures and their tradition. A Sola Scriptura Protestant will believe that the Bible is inerrant and contains today exactly what God originally revealed and as it was orginally written. Regardless of who uses the best translation today, you or a Protestant, your translations do not exactly match. You believe your translation is correct in those instances, and their's is wrong. If you're right, this means the KJV (for example) is not inerrant and teaches false concepts not revealed by God. A Protestant would say that is not possible, as they believe in Sola Scriptura, which guarantees preservation of the word. Yet you would say you believe in Sola Scriptura and it's your version that has been correctly translated. So both you and they declare themselves to be Sola Scriptura, yet you each believe the other is using a Bible which to some extent is corrupt. As I think about this more, I would say in my faith that the term Sola Scriptura is not useful. Depending on the definition, I may or may not believe it. I am "Sola Revelation". If God reveals a truth from heaven to a prophet, and the prophet communicates it to the world, I consider that to be scripture and I suppose that could make me Sola Scriptura.

 

[Katzpur]

The scripture cannot be broken, as Jesus said, sounds infallible to me

God who cannot lie said... also sounds infallible

Jude's statement to "Contend earnestly for the faith which was delivered up to the saints" sounds complete as far as essential doctrines and sufficient godliness as does 2 Tim 3:16 where all scripture is "God breathed"

"Delivered" does not mean "preserved." And of course, all scripture is "God breathed." That still doesn't imply that only the words found within the pages of one book are the only "God breathed" words in the world.

 

[Deeje]

I'm not looking to debate if your vesion of the Bible is superior to the KJV or if the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I'm making a point that Sola Scriptura seems to be ambigiuous and means different things to different people.

Can I remind you that you raised this issue, which is why I invited you to examine whether or not it is true. If you are not nterested in the truth, then what more is there to say?

Regardless of who uses the best translation today, you or a Protestant, your translations do not exactly match. You believe your translation is correct in those instances, and theirs is wrong. If you're right, this means the KJV (for example) is not inerrant and teaches false concepts not revealed by God. A Protestant would say that is not possible

Doctrine has more to do with interpretation than translation. When I studied the Bible after leaving Christendom, I found the truth in my own KJV.
Man can alter the words, but they will never be permitted to alter the message. I saw it clearly and I believe that any translation can be used as long as you have additional avenues of research. Strongs Concordance has been a great help, as is the Tanakh. Referring to these resources has cleared up a lot for me, especially in examining the meanings of words in their original languages. It has also given me confidence in the NWT as an accurate translation that will stand up to any scrutiny.

Yet you would say you believe in Sola Scriptura and it's your version that has been correctly translated. So both you and they declare themselves to be Sola Scriptura, yet you each believe the other is using a Bible which to some extent is corrupt. As I think about this more, I would say in my faith that the term Sola Scriptura is not useful.

If you believe in more than one “word of God”, when those books contradict, then that IMO, is a recipe for confusion. When there is conflict, which one do you accept as truth? The words of a self-proclaimed prophet, or the son of God? If you have to choose, then that in itself proves that your prophet cannot be trusted. If all scripture is inspired of God, it cannot contradict.

I am "Sola Revelation". If God reveals a truth from heaven to a prophet, and the prophet communicates it to the world, I consider that to be scripture and I suppose that could make me Sola Scriptura.

So much depends on the credentials and credibility of the one promoting the “revelation”. Who is doing the revealing and why do you believe him?

In my experience, unless one is born and raised to believe in your prophet and his claims, it takes a great deal of gullibility to believe and accept what he wrote, because there is not a single shred of evidence that proves what he said was true. What if he was just a religious nut experiencing a delusion? How would you know?

Does it not disturb you to contemplate this? Blind faith doesn’t lead to life. (John 17:3) If Jesus said that there are only two roads, (Matthew 7:13-14) and that only one leads to life.....how can we be sure that we are on the right one? The other road is the one that most of humanity are travelling......but it leads to death. We are staking our lives on our choices. If “few” are on the road to life.....numbers have nothing to do with who is teaching the truth.

 

[whirlingmerc]

"Delivered" does not mean "preserved." And of course, all scripture is "God breathed." That still doesn't imply that only the words found within the pages of one book are the only "God breathed" words in the world.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away" suggests being preserved.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Can I remind you that you raised this issue, which is why I invited you to examine whether or not it is true. If you are not nterested in the truth, then what more is there to say?



Doctrine has more to do with interpretation than translation. When I studied the Bible after leaving Christendom, I found the truth in my own KJV.
Man can alter the words, but they will never be permitted to alter the message. I saw it clearly and I believe that any translation can be used as long as you have additional avenues of research. Strong Concordance has been a great help, as is the Tanakh. Referring to these resources has cleared up a lot for me, especially in examining the meanings of words in their original languages. It has also given me confidence in the NWT as an accurate translation that will stand up to any scrutiny.



If you believe in more than one “word of God”, when those books contradict, then that IMO, is a recipe for confusion. When there is conflict, which one do you accept as truth? The words of a self-proclaimed prophet, or the son of God? If you have to choose, then that in itself proves that your prophet cannot be trusted. If all scripture is inspired of God, it cannot contradict.



So much depends on the credentials and credibility of the one promoting the “revelation”. Who is doing the revealing and why do you believe him?

In my experience, unless one is born and raised to believe in your prophet and his claims, it takes a great deal of gullibility to believe and accept what he wrote, because there is not a single shred of evidence that proves what he said was true. What if he was just a religious nut experiencing a delusion? How would you know?

Does it not disturb you to contemplate this? Blind faith doesn’t lead to life. (John 17:3) If Jesus said that there are only two roads, (Matthew 7:13-14) and that only one leads to life.....how can we be sure that we are on the right one? The other road is the one that most of humanity are travelling......but it leads to death. We are staking our lives on our choices. If “few” are on the road to life.....numbers have nothing to do with who is teaching the truth.

In some respects 'blind faith' is a glorified prejudice.
I think a leap of faith towards the light is a better way to look at it.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What was actually Bible - before it was written, compiled and redacted?

It was oral tradition. Or better traditions. It was something dynamic, evolving and collective - folk traditions circulating among people ... You can't place scripture above or out of tradition because it is tradition. Did Jesus's gospel and example of kingdom became word of God only when it was written and declared as new canon?

Yes, thanks God scripture is good for teaching and Jesus quoted from it but it's not the only word of God. And the meaning is not in the letter but in the spirit. Holy Spirit is alive and speaking also today and can't be fossilized or moulded. Christians are supposed to be living Bibles - everyday life that radiates holiness is supposed to tell more than Bible verses.

 

[whirlingmerc]

What was actually Bible - before it was written, compiled and redacted?

It was oral tradition. Or better traditions. It was something dynamic, evolving and collective - folk traditions circulating among people ... You can't place scripture above or out of tradition because it is tradition. Did Jesus's gospel and example of kingdom became word of God only when it was written and declared as new canon?

Yes, thanks God scripture is good for teaching and Jesus quoted from it but it's not the only word of God. And the meaning is not in the letter but in the spirit. Holy Spirit is alive and speaking also today and can't be fossilized or moulded. Christians are supposed to be living Bibles - everyday life that radiates holiness is supposed to tell more than Bible verses.

2 Tim 3:16 says all scripture is 'God breathed'
That is a rather strong way of saying every word is inspired.

No surprise and Moses said, Jesus quoting, "man does not live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God"

 

[sojourner]

Christians:

Is Sola Scriptura biblical?

Or is it a tradition?

Not biblical. In fact, it’s a heresy.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not biblical. In fact, it’s a heresy.

Another issue is Tota Scriptura which means you look at all scripture and 2 Tim 3:16 supports 'ALL SCRIPTURE' being "God Breathed" and sufficiently "Adaquest" that for the man of God in matters of life and godliness. Certainly Moses and Jesus both held to Man lives not by bread alone but on EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.

But I do agree with Sola Scripture as well. The Apostle Paul warned to 'be careful not to go beyond the scriptures" in some sense and so it's important to understand what he was exhorting to.1 Corinthians 4:6

It will depend on what you mean. The scriptures plus the Holy SPirit's illumination. It is good to consider the council of what Christians held before but I would still take that 'advisement instruction' as still secondary.

 

[sojourner]

Another issue is Tota Scriptura which means you look at all scripture and 2 Tim 3:16 supports 'ALL SCRIPTURE' being "God Breathed" and sufficiently "Adaquest" that for the man of God in matters of life and godliness. Certainly Moses and Jesus both held to Man lives not by bread alone but on EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.

But I do agree with Sola Scripture as well. The Apostle Paul warned to 'be careful not to go beyond the scriptures" in some sense and so it's important to understand what he was exhorting to.1 Corinthians 4:6

It will depend on what you mean. The scriptures plus the Holy SPirit's illumination. It is good to consider the council of what Christians held before but I would still take that 'advisement instruction' as still secondary.

Except that 2 Tim. Doesn’t include any of the NT, because the NT wasn’t canonized then. 2 Tim. Only refers to the Hebraic writings.

The Apostle Paul was, by definition, only speaking of Hebraic texts, so any time we refer to the Greek texts, by your criterion, we are going against Paul’s teachings.

Methinks that neither example is cogent to sola scriptura, which, as I’ve pointed out, is a heresy.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Except that 2 Tim. Doesn’t include any of the NT, because the NT wasn’t canonized then. 2 Tim. Only refers to the Hebraic writings.

The Apostle Paul was, by definition, only speaking of Hebraic texts, so any time we refer to the Greek texts, by your criterion, we are going against Paul’s teachings.

Methinks that neither example is cogent to sola scriptura, which, as I’ve pointed out, is a heresy.

Actually the New Testament refers to parts of the New Testament as scripture twice.
Once referring to a statement in the gospels
Once Peter referring to Paul's writings

Interestingly, Eve went off the rails when she 'added' to what God said, looking innocent enough... but... 'we should not eat OR TOUCH the fruit' well no command about touching. Why does Genesis bring this up? because we should not 'go beyond what is written'

 

[sojourner]

Actually the New Testament refers to parts of the New Testament as scripture twice.
Once referring to a statement in the gospels
Once Peter referring to Paul's writings

Interestingly, Eve went off the rails when she 'added' to what God said, looking innocent enough... but... 'we should not eat OR TOUCH the fruit' well no command about touching. Why does Genesis bring this up? because we should not 'go beyond what is written'

1) was the Gospel statement you refer to a quotation from or a reference to a passage in the OT? I’d need the specific passage you’re referencing here.
2) to what did Peter refer, specifically?
3) the term “scripture” usually means any writing. Is that the case here? Because there are a couple of problems with your logic:
A) if Peter is referring to Paul’s writings as “scripture,” he is either using the term to describe writing in general (because none of Paul had been categorized and canonized yet at that time), or the Bible is lying about what constitutes biblical scripture.
B) if Timothy’s term refers only to biblical texts, then it refers only to the Hebraic texts. If his term refers to writing in general, then ANY and ALL writing is useful...
Do you see the problem your “logic” creates?

Jesus went beyond what was written all the time. “It is written... but I tell you...”. Your “exegesis” of Genesis is not well founded. The Jews have the Tanakh. They also have Talmud. Nope, I’m afraid your concept of this tight definition of scripture just doesn’t wash.

 

[whirlingmerc]

1) was the Gospel statement you refer to a quotation from or a reference to a passage in the OT? I’d need the specific passage you’re referencing here.
2) to what did Peter refer, specifically?
3) the term “scripture” usually means any writing. Is that the case here? Because there are a couple of problems with your logic:
A) if Peter is referring to Paul’s writings as “scripture,” he is either using the term to describe writing in general (because none of Paul had been categorized and canonized yet at that time), or the Bible is lying about what constitutes biblical scripture.
B) if Timothy’s term refers only to biblical texts, then it refers only to the Hebraic texts. If his term refers to writing in general, then ANY and ALL writing is useful...
Do you see the problem your “logic” creates?

Jesus went beyond what was written all the time. “It is written... but I tell you...”. Your “exegesis” of Genesis is not well founded. The Jews have the Tanakh. They also have Talmud. Nope, I’m afraid your concept of this tight definition of scripture just doesn’t wash.

Paul refers fo a saying of Jesus from Luke as scripture Timothy 5:18

Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture in one of his his epistles 2 Peter 3:16

Not to mention...1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,

Of course Jesus promised the apostles he would lead them into 'all truth' meaning all truth sufficient for salvation

Of course Jude 3 says to contend earnestly for the truth given once for all to the saints.

 

[sojourner]

Paul refers fo a saying of Jesus from Luke as scripture Timothy 5:18

Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture in one of his his epistles 2 Peter 3:16

Not to mention...1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,

Of course Jesus promised the apostles he would lead them into 'all truth' meaning all truth sufficient for salvation

Of course Jude 3 says to contend earnestly for the truth given once for all to the saints.

None of the refutes my point.

 

[whirlingmerc]

None of the refutes my point.

At one point in the reformation in Catholic France, Psalm singing was outlawed. How do you suppose the Catholic church came to burn Bible translators and outlaw Psalm singing?

Jesus sang Psalms.

Bible.org says "
In short, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means not only that there is a Bible in every man’s hands, but also a struggle in every man’s mind—a struggle to find the truth for themselves. Again, it must be restated, this does not mean that we do not have teachers who are gifted in theology and exegesis. Neither does this mean that we disregard traditions of the past. It means that each person must study and wrestle with theology for themselves, coming to a deeper understanding, and taking ownership of their convictions. It means that we have the right to ask tough questions, search for answers, and come to intellectually defensible conclusions. It means that we do not have to ignorantly accept what someone else teaches without question. Is the doctrine of sola Scriptura dangerous? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely! The alternative is even more dangerous, since it is nothing less than a surrendering of the mind.

Sola Scriptura: the belief that the Scripture alone is the final and only infallible source for matters of faith and practice."

 

[sojourner]

What do you replace the Bible with?

I find it interesting that at one point in the reformation in Catholic France, Psalm singing was outlawed. How do you suppose the Catholic church came to burn Bible translators and outlaw Psalm singing?

Jesus sang Psalms.

Who’s suggesting that we replace the Bible? Your responses are usually fraught with hyperbole. I wonder why that is? This isn’t an all or nothing proposition. the position of the apostles and the church has always been that Tradition ranks with scripture. That’s why the Bible says for the churches to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching... that “teaching” refers to Tradition. Paul’s tradition was eventually canonized as holy writ. it’s both/and. Always has been.

I think you’ll find that the French still read the psalms. Music was at issue — not the Bible.

 

[metis]

Sola Scriptura: the belief that the Scripture alone is the final and only infallible source for matters of faith and practice."

But the reality is that the Bible itself never says that. Instead, God tells Moses in Exodus that he is to assemble courts (bet din) to make decisions, which the Jewish people did and still do.

And in the NT, God sets up the Church through the apostles to make decisions, and one of those decisions by the Church was to select the canon of the Bible during the 4th century that most Christians use. Also, what happened at Pentecost was the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church as its main guide, not the scriptures per se.

Therefore, sola scriptura really doesn't make sense based on the scriptures themselves.

 

[whirlingmerc]

But the reality is that the Bible itself never says that. Instead, God tells Moses in Exodus that he is to assemble courts (bet din) to make decisions, which the Jewish people did and still do.

And in the NT, God sets up the Church through the apostles to make decisions, and one of those decisions by the Church was to select the canon of the Bible during the 4th century that most Christians use. Also, what happened at Pentecost was the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church as its main guide, not the scriptures per se.

Therefore, sola scriptura really doesn't make sense based on the scriptures themselves.

The courts and decisions Moses was told to assemble had more to do with applying what was revealed in the form of revealed case law to not quite the same life issues and also to make sure procedurally 'everything was confirmed by 2 or 3 witnesses' The truth handed down by Moses was meant for all to 'teach to the next generation' see Psalm 78

Jer 31:34 points to a New Covenant where everyone knows the Lord and Peter said we all were 'a holy priesthood' which is exactly a fulfillment of the promise of God to Israel in Exodus (but not fulfilled in the OT but the New)

 

[whirlingmerc]

But the reality is that the Bible itself never says that. Instead, God tells Moses in Exodus that he is to assemble courts (bet din) to make decisions, which the Jewish people did and still do.

And in the NT, God sets up the Church through the apostles to make decisions, and one of those decisions by the Church was to select the canon of the Bible during the 4th century that most Christians use. Also, what happened at Pentecost was the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church as its main guide, not the scriptures per se.

Therefore, sola scriptura really doesn't make sense based on the scriptures themselves.

Paul says in Collossians he teaches with all wisdom in chapter 1 and tells the people in the church you all (y'all) teach each other with all wisdom.

Ironically by the middle ages the local priests were not part of the teaching church and only the bishops up (probably partly due to high illiteracy) and this was a major point of the reformation. The pastor was to be a minister of word and sacrament and even all believers were part of the 'priesthood of believers'.

Even Bible reading in some establishment churches fell by the wayside or was discouraged. My mom went to St Mary's of Notre Dame and Bible reading was just not encouraged in her generation.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Who’s suggesting that we replace the Bible? Your responses are usually fraught with hyperbole. I wonder why that is? This isn’t an all or nothing proposition. the position of the apostles and the church has always been that Tradition ranks with scripture. That’s why the Bible says for the churches to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching... that “teaching” refers to Tradition. Paul’s tradition was eventually canonized as holy writ. it’s both/and. Always has been.

I think you’ll find that the French still read the psalms. Music was at issue — not the Bible.

Interestingly the first Psalm translated to the language of the people of the day was the penitential Psalm 6 by a French woman of notoriety and the same psalm into English by a young teen age Queen Elizabeth

By and large Bible illiteracy was high by most people and even clergy back then. And Bible illiteracy still high in America now but more of the superficial understanding sort.

Written in her French Psalter

No crooked leg, no bleared eye,
No part deformed out of kind,
Nor yet so ugly half can be
As is the inward suspicious mind.
Queen Elizabeth I​

Jesus warned of replacing the world of God by traditions of men, quoting Isaiah on the same. The Bible is replaced and set aside many ways and even Mary can be a Jesus substitute/God substitute if one lets it happen.