Poll: Sola Scriptura - Biblical or Unbiblical?

[Christ's Lamb]

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the only authority for a Christian, or atleast the highest authority.

I would love to see why you do/don't believe sola scriptura is biblical/unbiblical.

Thanks.

 

[McBell]

Please be so kind as to reveal the scripture that says scripture only.
Until such time as they can be shown, Sola Scriptura is not scriptural.

Now since I understand that not all scripture is contained within the Bible....

 

[Rival]

How could any of the original Apostles possibly have followed Sola Scriptura when the 'Scriptura' part hadn't even been written yet? Strange things afoot...

 

[Kolibri]

How could any of the original Apostles possibly have followed Sola Scriptura when the 'Scriptura' part hadn't even been written yet? Strange things afoot...

One of the gifts of the spirit that still existed in the infancy of the Christian congregations was "discernment of inspired expressions". (1 Cor 12:10) But when the Bible canon was complete, these special gifts of the spirit were done away with.

"Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, (that is, miraculous speaking of other languages.) they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with." - 1 Cor 13:8-10

 

[Desert Snake]

Biblical.

 

[Rival]

One of the gifts of the spirit that still existed in the infancy of the Christian congregations was "discernment of inspired expressions". (1 Cor 12:10) But when the Bible canon was complete, these special gifts of the spirit were done away with.

"Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, (that is, miraculous speaking of other languages.) they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with." - 1 Cor 13:8-10

I don't mean when they were writing. They only started writing late on. I mean in the intermediate period after Yeshua's death.

 

[Kolibri]

I don't mean when they were writing. They only started writing late on. I mean in the intermediate period after Yeshua's death.

yes, at the time you mention, sola scripture was not exclusive yet. But come the time when the last of the books were being complied by John about the year 98 C.E. he wrote:

"Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, (Lit., "every spirit.") but test the inspired statements (Lit., "the spirits.") to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." - 1 John 4:1

At that late date the antichrist was "already in the world." (1 John 4:3)

 

[Rival]

The Bible is part of religion/s/, not what created the religion/s/. They already had the beliefs, same way as I have teachings that many don't, have heard them, they aren't in the Bible, are they therefore not part of ''religious'' beliefs? hmm
Look at Judaism, the have a verbal Torah, that is very important, and as authoritative as the written Torah, (afaik). Xianity comes from a similar tradition/background as Judaism, and the same idea applies.
That is why Xians can have set beliefs that are not explicitly stated in the Bible, yet the Bible traditionally is said to back the beliefs up!
There is disagreement between Xian groups, but this is because Xianity formed in different areas, and among different groups/
This, however, does not change the fact that the religious text, if understood properly, is exactly correct, it merely means there is disagreement on what the text means.

Yes, this is what I'm saying? Lol.

 

[Desert Snake]

How could any of the original Apostles possibly have followed Sola Scriptura when the 'Scriptura' part hadn't even been written yet? Strange things afoot...

Your statement.

Yes, this is what I'm saying? Lol.

Perhaps your statement can be taken to mean that the 'religious' beliefs rather followed the written text, . This argument is usually presented as a reason to claim that a 'church' has complete authority on Biblical interpretation.

Seems I read the wrong meaning from your quote.

 

[Rival]

Your statement.


Perhaps your statement can be taken to mean that the 'religious' beliefs rather followed the written text, . This argument is usually presented as a reason to claim that a 'church' has complete authority on Biblical interpretation.

Seems I read the wrong meaning from your quote.

I'm basically saying that someone had to write the Scripture first. Ergo, this person could not have followed Sola Scriptura, because he was making a new Scripture. The writing itself had to come from somewhere and if the text is the ONLY authority, what gave the person the right to write more Scripture? Where did it come from?

 

[Rival]

Anyway, I'm not even supposed to be in this debate. It's for Bible Believers, while I am a Mazdaian. I'll stop interfering now

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm basically saying that someone had to write the Scripture first. Ergo, this person could not have followed Sola Scriptura, because he was making a new Scripture. The writing itself had to come from somewhere and if the text is the ONLY authority, what gave the person the right to write more Scripture? Where did it come from?

Speaking of extra Biblical teachings, there are some members here, who are knowlegable about Xianity, moreso than me, and in fact that's a good example of what I'm talking about.

I assume it, the Scripture, came from revelation and tradition.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh. Oops neither am I I think.

Anyway, I'm not even supposed to be in this debate. It's for Bible Believers, while I am a Mazdaian. I'll stop interfering now

 

[Politesse]

Well, I'm a Christian and I think Sola Scriptura is rubbish. The Bible says not to build idols at all, not to make the Bible itself an idol. What does it tell us to do, above all else? To love the LORD your God and love your neighbor as yourself. If you aren't doing that, it doesn't matter what you can twist the words of Scripture to support.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Man shall live by every word from God."

The Bible is the Word of God. That's what all the red parts are for.

 

[lovemuffin]

in the full quote, there is certainly the implication that if humans do not live on bread alone, they also don't live on the written scriptures alone either. There is also the interesting dichotomy between "Word of God" referring to the Logos and "Word of God" referring to scripture.

Beyond that, it would make no sense for Jesus to say that he had many things to tell us, but that we could not bear them yet, under sola scriptura. The entire sending of the Holy Spirit doesn't make sense with such a principle. Nor would John's assertion that the world couldn't contain all the books that would be written if everything Jesus did was recorded. 1 Cor 12 was mentioned earlier, but it seems dubious that it means that there was a temporary spiritual gift that somehow ended in the early church history, especially when you look at the actual history of the texts and the canonization process. Beyond that, from the text the verse seems to refer to the kind of gift of languages that is talked about in Acts at Pentecost.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sola Scriptura doesn't mean, Bible only, for teachings. It means that the bible is the main and infallible authority.

 

[lovemuffin]

Sola Scriptura doesn't mean, Bible only, for teachings. It means that the bible is the main and infallible authority.

It actually literally means "by scripture alone". As far as I'm aware there are some nuanced differences in how various protestant denominations understand the principle, but what you are describing sounds more like "prima scriptura" of the anglican communion or wesleyan methodists. It is absolutely the case that many protestant denominations emphasize the "only" in "only scripture", saying not only that it is the main infallible authority, but that it is the only source of revealed doctrine and that anything not found in the Bible is automatically rejected. In fact, you can see this stated routinely in threads in this forum.

 

[Desert Snake]

It actually literally means "by scripture alone". As far as I'm aware there are some nuanced differences in how various protestant denominations understand the principle, but what you are describing sounds more like "prima scriptura" of the anglican communion or wesleyan methodists. It is absolutely the case that many protestant denominations emphasize the "only" in "only scripture", saying not only that it is the main infallible authority, but that it is the only source of revealed doctrine and that anything not found in the Bible is automatically rejected. In fact, you can see this stated routinely in threads in this forum.

Often what is presented is a 'figuring' from Scripture, a conclusion, and then presented as if it has that specific meaning, only...This being considered, we are mostly dealing with interpretation for Xian belief differences, not the issue of Sola Scriptura.

That being said, I don't think we are disagreeing, or agreeing, really. I think the notion of a comparison, a decisive conclusion, concerning two conflicting ideas in Xianity, usually is decided by Scripture.

 

[lovemuffin]

I guess it's true that I tend to mentally break Christians into categories that are like

- Orthodox (eastern; oriental, coptic)
- Catholic
- Protestant (sola scriptura; orthodox Christology; trinitarian, etc)
- Other (Mormon, JW, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Science, etc)

I'm sure they aren't exact categories, but I think it's fair to call any denomination that references sola scriptura in its statement of faith "protestant", given the source of the term.

The problem that I see with your understanding of "sola scriptura" is that, as you've stated it, both orthodox and catholics would probably agree with it. Where there is applicable scripture, they both would see it as being authoritative on a subject, and they at least purport to reject understandings which can't be harmonized with the scriptures. And yet they reject "sola scriptura" in the way the reformers tended to use it, i.e as a means by which to reject various extra-biblical church traditions which were nevertheless certainly not contradicted by scripture. The rejection was not because they were contrary to scripture but because they were not in scripture.