Poll: Sola Scriptura - Biblical or Unbiblical?

[Shiranui117]

If Sola Scriptura were true, then what did Christians do for the roughly 400 years that we didn't have an approximate standard for the Scriptural canon?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

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.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

That the man of God may be "complete". Another translation says "perfect", another "thoroughly equipped". These verses seem to show the Scriptures are quite sufficient.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If Sola Scriptura were true, then what did Christians do for the roughly 400 years that we didn't have an approximate standard for the Scriptural canon?

400 years seems a bit of an exaggeration. The four Gospels were sure by at least the second century. The rest was pretty certain through the third and certainly by the fourth. The canon itself was given the moment the texts were written, we didn't decide it, God did when He gave it to us. Sure, it took a while to sort things out and recognise exactly what was what but the New Testament letters and Gospels were spread throughout the Christian world, they didn't suddenly pop in as a reliable source in the fifth century.

Sola Scriptura does not rule out other sources of authority but asserts the Scriptures are the final and only infallible authority that we have now.

The Apostles spoke with all the authority of God, and the early Christians preserved what they had taught them and passed down to them. Their writings were also given and spread throughout the Church. The Scriptures equip a man for every good work, the man of God may be complete by them (2 Tim 3:16-17). The early church used the Scriptures from earliest times (from the first century Clement admonishes his Corinthian readers to “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle”, it's not like they had to wait until the church as a whole formally approved them). Yes, there was debate over some writings, but the early believers often turned to what the Apostles had written or passed down.

To say that the Christians didn't have anything for the first 400 years would be a misunderstanding of the Protestant view and the meaning of sola scriptura. The early Christians certainly relied on what was handed down, and they did have written epistles and Gospels going around. The point of sola scriptura is that the only infallible authority are those things which are written, and not later traditions and innovations that may have occurred. (Which finds its chief evidence in the aforementioned 2 Tim 3:16-17, which says a man may be "complete", or as the KJV says "perfect" and "thoroughly furnished" for every good work by them.)

 

[Shiranui117]

400 years seems a bit of an exaggeration. The four Gospels were sure by at least the second century. The rest was pretty certain through the third and certainly by the fourth. The canon itself was given the moment the texts were written, we didn't decide it, God did when He gave it to us. Sure, it took a while to sort things out and recognise exactly what was what but the New Testament letters and Gospels were spread throughout the Christian world, they didn't suddenly pop in as a reliable source in the fifth century.

Sola Scriptura does not rule out other sources of authority but asserts the Scriptures are the final and only infallible authority that we have now.

The Apostles spoke with all the authority of God, and the early Christians preserved what they had taught them and passed down to them. Their writings were also given and spread throughout the Church. The Scriptures equip a man for every good work, the man of God may be complete by them (2 Tim 3:16-17). The early church used the Scriptures from earliest times (from the first century Clement admonishes his Corinthian readers to “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle”, it's not like they had to wait until the church as a whole formally approved them). Yes, there was debate over some writings, but the early believers often turned to what the Apostles had written or passed down.

To say that the Christians didn't have anything for the first 400 years would be a misunderstanding of the Protestant view and the meaning of sola scriptura. The early Christians certainly relied on what was handed down, and they did have written epistles and Gospels going around. The point of sola scriptura is that the only infallible authority are those things which are written, and not later traditions and innovations that may have occurred. (Which finds its chief evidence in the aforementioned 2 Tim 3:16-17, which says a man may be "complete", or as the KJV says "perfect" and "thoroughly furnished" for every good work by them.)

But how do you square this idea with the fact that the Scriptures were only part of what was handed down? There was no distinction in the mind of the early Christian between the Scriptures and the rest of the Apostolic Tradition. The Scriptures were simply the small part of that Tradition that was written down. Why say that only one small part of what the Apostles handed down is infallible, and not the entirety? Indeed, St. Paul admonishes us to adhere to the traditions we were taught, whether by spoken word or by epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Indeed, if we keep the Bible alone and remove it from its proper place within the Tradition, we lose our ability to correctly interpret it--hence the thousands upon thousands of conflicting interpretations of Scripture today. We cannot leave Biblical interpretation to personal opinion, but we must adhere to the rest of what the Apostles handed down to us in the Tradition--only then can we hope to have a correct understanding of the Bible. That is what I have come to believe, at least, in my study of Christian history and theology.

 

[Kolibri]

But how do you square this idea with the fact that the Scriptures were only part of what was handed down? There was no distinction in the mind of the early Christian between the Scriptures and the rest of the Apostolic Tradition. The Scriptures were simply the small part of that Tradition that was written down. Why say that only one small part of what the Apostles handed down is infallible, and not the entirety? Indeed, St. Paul admonishes us to adhere to the traditions we were taught, whether by spoken word or by epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Indeed, if we keep the Bible alone and remove it from its proper place within the Tradition, we lose our ability to correctly interpret it--hence the thousands upon thousands of conflicting interpretations of Scripture today. We cannot leave Biblical interpretation to personal opinion, but we must adhere to the rest of what the Apostles handed down to us in the Tradition--only then can we hope to have a correct understanding of the Bible. That is what I have come to believe, at least, in my study of Christian history and theology.

How do you validate tradition? Does it not need to match canon? If it does not disagree with canon, fine. But if disagrees there is a problem. There is also a problem if it complicates things too much. Jesus condemned the Jewish religious leaders for teaching commands of men as doctrine. When we hold fast to tradition w/o measuring it against the written word, how can we say we are being any different then those Jesus spoke out against?

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: Hi Christ's Lamb, I would say unbiblical

 

[Shiranui117]

How do you validate tradition? Does it not need to match canon? If it does not disagree with canon, fine.

Scripture has always agreed with the rest of the Apostolic Tradition--after all, Scripture is merely one small part of the Apostolic Tradition, and it is thanks to the Apostolic Tradition (i.e. the writings of the Fathers, the Liturgies and lectionaries of the various early churches) that the books we now hold today as the New Testament came to a place of high prominence, and were thus codified as the New Testament by the Church during the 300's and the 400's.

We can validate the Apostolic Tradition the same way we validate the Scriptures--by tracing the lineage of the Tradition, seeing who taught what, and then moving down the line and seeing what the next generation taught. In this case, what is taught from one generation to the next is the same. Liturgies may be elaborated and expanded upon, new prayers and hymns may be composed, and emerging rhetorical styles may be employed, but the essence of the teaching is the same. In just the same way, the Biblical text was broken up into chapters and verses, and the language may have changed, and how it is organized may also have changed, but the Biblical text remains the same. Even though we don't have the original copies of any of the Biblical books, even the Jehovah's Witnesses can confidently tout the Bible as being infallible and completely reliable, because of the overall consistency of the manuscript traditions throughout the ages. And if this holds true for Scripture, which is the tradition of the Apostles written down, then what the Apostles handed down to us via spoken word must also be accurate (2 Thessalonians 2:15). In the case of the rest of the Apostolic Tradition, we can trace parts of it back to even before much of the New Testament was written.

But if disagrees there is a problem. There is also a problem if it complicates things too much. Jesus condemned the Jewish religious leaders for teaching commands of men as doctrine. When we hold fast to tradition w/o measuring it against the written word, how can we say we are being any different then those Jesus spoke out against?

Do you believe that only the tiny fraction of the Apostles' teaching that got written down is infallible and correct? Or is everything the Apostles taught correct and infallible, even what was not written down and simply passed on to the next generations?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

But how do you square this idea with the fact that the Scriptures were only part of what was handed down? There was no distinction in the mind of the early Christian between the Scriptures and the rest of the Apostolic Tradition. The Scriptures were simply the small part of that Tradition that was written down. Why say that only one small part of what the Apostles handed down is infallible, and not the entirety? Indeed, St. Paul admonishes us to adhere to the traditions we were taught, whether by spoken word or by epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

If the Scriptures make up a "small part", then how can they equip a man for every good work, that he may be perfect? Paul does speak of what was spoken, but considering that the Scriptures already equip a man for every good work, and make a man wise unto salvation, why would the spoken part be that different? How would you even determine what the spoken part was? Do any church fathers actually describe what the spoken part was?

Indeed, if we keep the Bible alone and remove it from its proper place within the Tradition, we lose our ability to correctly interpret it--hence the thousands upon thousands of conflicting interpretations of Scripture today. We cannot leave Biblical interpretation to personal opinion, but we must adhere to the rest of what the Apostles handed down to us in the Tradition--only then can we hope to have a correct understanding of the Bible. That is what I have come to believe, at least, in my study of Christian history and theology.

If we defer to Tradition, the problem only multiplies. We must now privately interpret Tradition, and there are many interpretations, let alone to arrive at any single correct Church (EO, non-Chalcedonian, Catholic, etc.). Ultimately it rests on our fallible minds. Tradition comprises of fallible church fathers, and there is no guarantee that error could not have crept into their teaching at some stage, often we find developed doctrines appearing in the third or fourth centuries with no real link (or a tenuous one) to the preceding centuries. (For example, asking the saints for intercession as taught by a church father could be traced to the fourth century, maybe the third century at the earliest, with no real connection to the centuries beforehand apart from some tenuous Bible verses raised by apologists and maybe some wall-paintings. The tenuous nature of much of these links goes for many doctrines of the time.)

Rather than get into the deeper subjective mess of patristics and traditions, the Scriptures give us an infallible guide themselves.
"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." - Acts 17:11. They examined the Scriptures to see if what the things they were told were true. They did not fear private interpretation, they examined the Scriptures and determined what was true.

 

[Shiranui117]

If the Scriptures make up a "small part", then how can they equip a man for every good work, that he may be perfect? Paul does speak of what was spoken, but considering that the Scriptures already equip a man for every good work, and make a man wise unto salvation, why would the spoken part be that different? How would you even determine what the spoken part was? Do any church fathers actually describe what the spoken part was?

Papias writes thus:

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Notice that many of the things Papias mentioned--teachings of Andrew, Philip, Thomas, and all the other Apostles of the Lord, whose writings we do not have--were kept in the memory of the presbyters. How early Christians worshipped, how they fasted, what the hierarchy of the Church looked like, how they prayed, all these things are only briefly touched upon in the Scriptures. It is only by looking at the extra-Biblical sources that we know what the life of the early Church was like. Writings like the Didache and the works of St. Justin Martyr give us greater insight into the liturgical and spiritual life of the Church, points which the Scriptures rarely even mention. The Scriptures are a key part to having a full picture, but they themselves are not enough--we need the rest of the witness of the early Church.

You can compare the writings of the Fathers and see how they agree and complement each other. When we take the Fathers as a whole, we see a balanced and complete picture that enables us to truly understand the Scriptures and the Faith. They may each address different nuances, their interpretations may not be carbon copies of each other, but they are all informed by what was handed down to them from preceding generations of Christians (for the most part; people like Augustine had to wing it). If there are errors that begin to creep in from one generation to the next, we can see this happening, and believe me, they did too. The Fathers correct each other; it is for this reason that we have synods and councils, to address errors that begin creeping in. This is how we dealt with all the ancient heresies, and every single one of them was rooted out. You can compare the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch from the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century, and measure them against the writings of all the other Fathers, and you will not find disagreement in matters of the Faith

Yes, the Scriptures equip us for every good work, but nowhere do the Scriptures say that the written word alone is enough. This is the great irony of Sola Scriptura; in saying that the Scriptures alone should be viewed as authoritative instead of man-made traditions, one has to use a man-made tradition to assert the point.

If we defer to Tradition, the problem only multiplies. We must now privately interpret Tradition, and there are many interpretations, let alone to arrive at any single correct Church (EO, non-Chalcedonian, Catholic, etc.). Ultimately it rests on our fallible minds. Tradition comprises of fallible church fathers, and there is no guarantee that error could not have crept into their teaching at some stage, often we find developed doctrines appearing in the third or fourth centuries with no real link (or a tenuous one) to the preceding centuries.

So how do you read 1 Timothy 3:15, which states that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth? (Note how it says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the foundation of the truth.) How do you read the passage where Jesus says the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth? (John 14:26)

(For example, asking the saints for intercession as taught by a church father could be traced to the fourth century, maybe the third century at the earliest, with no real connection to the centuries beforehand apart from some tenuous Bible verses raised by apologists and maybe some wall-paintings. The tenuous nature of much of these links goes for many doctrines of the time.)

Rather than get into the deeper subjective mess of patristics and traditions, the Scriptures give us an infallible guide themselves.

Where does it say in the Scriptures that the Scriptures are infallible? It is the Church which is infallible, not the Scriptures.

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." - Acts 17:11. They examined the Scriptures to see if what the things they were told were true. They did not fear private interpretation, they examined the Scriptures and determined what was true.

"By their fruits you will know them," Jesus said. What are the fruits of Sola Scriptura? Before Martin Luther came up with that idea, our problems used to be over things like how much power the Pope should have, or whether Jesus exists in two natures vs. of two natures, or whether Mary can be called the Mother of God since Jesus is God. All issues that can be dealt with rather easily, with humility and understanding. Ever since Sola Scriptura, however, we've been seeing people denying even that Jesus is God. People even denying the Holy Trinity. People saying that the Holy Spirit isn't a person. People coming up with such crazy ideas as the Rapture, or that Jesus was never human, or that the early Church apostasized and was destroyed by heresy immediately after St. John the Apostle keeled over, etc, etc. Ever since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura came about, we went from having four churches (who all split from each other over political issues and language barriers) to thousands upon thousands. Sola Scriptura has left Christianity shattered and broken. Because people are being left to their own devices for interpreting the Bible, we're seeing old heresies that the Church was able to definitively refute come back to life again with force. No one can agree on how the Bible should be interpreted. Only with the Apostolic Tradition do we have a means to say what is a wrong interpretation of the Bible and what is a correct interpretation. The Holy Spirit works through the whole Church.

 

[Kolibri]

Do you believe that only the tiny fraction of the Apostles' teaching that got written down is infallible and correct? Or is everything the Apostles taught correct and infallible, even what was not written down and simply passed on to the next generations?

The Apostles themselves were imperfect men. Paul even had to correct Peter once for caving to peer pressure and making a pretense that the Jewish Christians were somehow better than the Gentile Christians. (Ga 2) They were men like us. Only those original documents that recognized as "God-breathed" were infallible - the copies were not, as the copiers too were imperfect.We have to rely on the thousands of manuscripts and fragments to recreate the originals by comparisons.

I personally believe that Catholics mistake Peter for being the rock that Jesus build his congregation on. (Mt 16:18) It was Jesus himself that was the foundation cornerstone. (1 Cor 3:11) There is no biblical history of the twelve being replaced (apostolic succession) when a faithful member died off.

 

[lovemuffin]

There is no biblical history of the twelve being replaced (apostolic succession) when a faithful member died off.

What about Matthias?

(note: I don't disagree entirely with your general point, but Matthias is my baptismal name so I can't resist)

 

[Shiranui117]

The Apostles themselves were imperfect men. Paul even had to correct Peter once for caving to peer pressure and making a pretense that the Jewish Christians were somehow better than the Gentile Christians. (Ga 2) They were men like us.

And yet you trust them in having come up with the Biblical canon that we have today?

Only those original documents that recognized as "God-breathed" were infallible - the copies were not, as the copiers too were imperfect. We have to rely on the thousands of manuscripts and fragments to recreate the originals by comparisons.

So how can you possibly trust the Bible as the sole authority for your doctrine if you acknowledge that what we have is fallible and imperfect?

 

[Kolibri]

What about Matthias?

(note: I don't disagree entirely with your general point, but Matthias is my baptismal name so I can't resist)

He replaced the one what died unfaithfully - Judas Iscariot.

 

[Kolibri]

And yet you trust them in having come up with the Biblical canon that we have today? So how can you possibly trust the Bible as the sole authority for your doctrine if you acknowledge that what we have is fallible and imperfect?

"For you now this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs up from any private interpretation. For prophesy was at no time brought about by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were moved (Lit., "carried along; borne along.") by holy spirit." - 2 Peter 1:20,21

I trust the operation of the holy spirit on these early Christians, to determine which pieces of writing were "inspired expressions" and what was simple correspondence/encouragement or administrative in nature. (1 Cor 12:10)

We have literally thousands of ancient bible manuscripts and fragments thereof to compare, so as to weed out the scribal errors and in some cases deliberate substitutions/additions to the text that have been made.

 

[Shiranui117]

"For you now this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs up from any private interpretation. For prophesy was at no time brought about by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were moved (Lit., "carried along; borne along.") by holy spirit." - 2 Peter 1:20,21

I trust the operation of the holy spirit on these early Christians, to determine which pieces of writing were "inspired expressions" and what was simple correspondence/encouragement or administrative in nature. (1 Cor 12:10)

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit only guided Christians to recognize what writings should be included in the New Testament, but did not guide them in any other aspect, allowing them to fall into error instead of leading them into all truth? Did the Holy Spirit only guide Christians to put together the New Testament, and abandon them afterwards until the JW's came along?

We have literally thousands of ancient bible manuscripts and fragments thereof to compare, so as to weed out the scribal errors and in some cases deliberate substitutions/additions to the text that have been made.

If you accept this as a valid way to ascertain the true content of the Scriptures, why do you not extend this same approach to the rest of Tradition, comparing the literally thousands of early Christian writings, testimonies, sermons, teachings, council proceedings, Liturgies, apologetics, Biblical exegeses, weeding out the deliberate substitutions/additions to the Tradition? If what you say about the Tradition becoming corrupted is true, you should be able to see the corruption happening, and see what additions/subtractions/alterations to the Tradition happened when.

 

[Kolibri]

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit only guided Christians to recognize what writings should be included in the New Testament, but did not guide them in any other aspect, allowing them to fall into error instead of leading them into all truth? Did the Holy Spirit only guide Christians to put together the New Testament, and abandon them afterwards until the JW's came along?

If you accept this as a valid way to ascertain the true content of the Scriptures, why do you not extend this same approach to the rest of Tradition, comparing the literally thousands of early Christian writings, testimonies, sermons, teachings, council proceedings, Liturgies, apologetics, Biblical exegeses, weeding out the deliberate substitutions/additions to the Tradition? If what you say about the Tradition becoming corrupted is true, you should be able to see the corruption happening, and see what additions/subtractions/alterations to the Tradition happened when.

The scriptures clearly said that there would be an apostasy. Holy Spirit would help the real Christians but it would not prevent them from going into captivity to a figurative Babylon. While in that 'land', there would always be a few of Christ's brothers present. (Mt 28:20) Only when the cry went out to "get out of her, my people" would Christ's brothers again be reintegrated into a people set apart. (Re 18:4)

"Let no one lead you astray (or "seduce you.") in any way, because [Jehovah's Day] will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction." - 2 Thess 2:3

"However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons." - 1 Tim 4:1

"But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene." - 2 Tim 2:16,17a

 

[Shiranui117]

The scriptures clearly said that there would be an apostasy. Holy Spirit would help the real Christians but it would not prevent them from going into captivity to a figurative Babylon. While in that 'land', there would always be a few of Christ's brothers present. (Mt 28:20) Only when the cry went out to "get out of her, my people" would Christ's brothers again be reintegrated into a people set apart. (Re 18:4)

"Let no one lead you astray (or "seduce you.") in any way, because [Jehovah's Day] will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction." - 2 Thess 2:3

"However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons." - 1 Tim 4:1

"But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene." - 2 Tim 2:16,17a

There would be some who fell away, and we see this throughout history with people like the Arians, Docetists, Sabellians, etc. but I see no grounds for saying that the entirety of the Church fell away. In fact, there is absolutely nothing that states this. The Church would persevere, and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and as Jesus promised, He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

1 John 2:18-26
Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.d]">[d] 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to use]">[e]—eternal life.

26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Heretics and anti-Christs don't stick around to take over the Church. The Body of Christ cannot become the body of the Antichrist. They will depart from the Church, as we always see happening throughout history. Or do you think that God was unable to protect His Church, or that He abandoned it?

 

[Kolibri]

There would be some who fell away, and we see this throughout history with people like the Arians, Docetists, Sabellians, etc. but I see no grounds for saying that the entirety of the Church fell away. In fact, there is absolutely nothing that states this. The Church would persevere, and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and as Jesus promised, He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

1 John 2:18-26
Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.d]">[d] 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to use]">[e]—eternal life.

26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Heretics and anti-Christs don't stick around to take over the Church. The Body of Christ cannot become the body of the Antichrist. They will depart from the Church, as we always see happening throughout history. Or do you think that God was unable to protect His Church, or that He abandoned it?

Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and the weeds at Mt 13:24-30 and explained it in verses 36-43. In verse 37 Jesus said that the "sons of the Kingdom" would be indistinguishable from the "sons of the wicked one" until the conclusion of the system of things. He did not abandon the "sons of the Kingdom" but they would lost among the weeds for a long while. He was with individual "sons of the Kingdom", but the distinction would not be able to be maintained till the harvest time.

 

[RedDragon94]

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.

I would like to know what else is meant by the word Scripture. What exactly falls under the umbrella term Scripture besides that which is written?

 

[Shiranui117]

Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and the weeds at Mt 13:24-30 and explained it in verses 36-43. In verse 37 Jesus said that the "sons of the Kingdom" would be indistinguishable from the "sons of the wicked one" until the conclusion of the system of things. He did not abandon the "sons of the Kingdom" but they would lost among the weeds for a long while. He was with individual "sons of the Kingdom", but the distinction would not be able to be maintained till the harvest time.

The tares didn't replace the wheat or kill it off, though. And the distinction between the wheat and tares was known long before the harvest. You make it seem as if there was only a tiny handful of wheat among a sea of tares, which is clearly not the case.