Sola Scriptora

[Fiosh]

Is everything thing we need to know contained in the Bible?

Yes. Here is the only lesson of scripture you need to know.

Lu 11

13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

Mt 7

11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Here is what follows once the Lord gives you "His Spirit".

Joh 15

26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.(Christ)

Joh 14

26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Joh 16

13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Denise

Denise, it sounds like you are saying that the Holy Spirit will tell you more than what is in the Bible. Am I understanding you?

Peace,

Fiosh

[Fiosh]

Wow....

Matt 5:18

It is saying that the law (moral law) will stand UNTIL Heaven and earth pass away (in their current forms). After this, there will be no need for it because of the restored state of creation. That's what the entire context is teaching. THus, the action does cease.

Matt 12:20

How does this indicate a continued action? Provide analysis.

Matt 16:28

You're kidding right? This is VERY clear saying that once they see the comming of the Son of Man (John) they will taste death after. In essence, they will be kept alive UNTIL they see this occur, after which, they will taste death. This too means the action does cease.

*sigh*

Matthew 12:20 " he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory"

This is not to say that He WILL then break a bruised reed .

* sigh *

this is not a difficult concept; you seem to be making it so

Matt 16:28

I doubt that they will all fall over dead the moment they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom

* sigh *

I never met a guy who sighs as much as you do.

[Guest shiloh357]

Which still stems from the fact that they have no structure within which to be held accountable. No one to hold the Bible up to them and say not only, "It is written", but also, "our Father's thru the ages have taught thus".

Nonsense. They do what they do because of the rebellion in their hearts. If they will not heed the Scriptures, then they will not heed man. You simply cannot pin ordination of homosexuals on Sola Scriptura. If they believed in Sola Scriptura, if they believed that the Bible was the final authority on Christian faith and practice, then they could not and would not ordain homosexuals.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. I know that because Jesus thru His Apostles, and thru His Church assures me it is.

I know it because I believe the Bible. The Bible doesn't need anyone's help to be true.

If I held these beliefs, and was not Catholic, could you see the logic?

If you were not Catholic but treated the words of Billy Graham like you treat the words of the Pope, I would tell you that you are just as wrong.

Jesus did and taught many things that were not written down. These things did not, of course, contradict the Bible. But rather helped to develop the teachings and doctrines that were written down. These messages were passed down thru the generations, as one bishop appointed the next.

Here you have a problem. Many things that Jesus did that were not written down... Because they were not written down, they are not known. Someone says, "Jesus did thus and so, but its not in the Bible." How would I know if that were true or not??? Is the response going to be, "Oh, this was one of those things that Jesus did that didn't make it into the Bible, and you should just believe us when we tell it happened, because Pope Joe Schmo X said it happened?"

You cannot base doctrine on something that someone says that Jesus did which is not recorded in Scripture. There is no means of testing it to determine it authenticity. I am not going to take someone else's word for it. To base a teaching on something Jesus is purported to have done or said, but for which there is no record is nonsensical. You can make up any doctrine you want and then base it on a supposed teaching of Jesus which did not make it into the Bible, but the Catholic Church just happens to know about. That is baloney.

[apothanein kerdos]

Matthew 12:20 " he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory"

This is not to say that He WILL then break a bruised reed .

I don't think you understand what is being said. He is saying He is not the Messiah everyone expected, that He will not proclaim His name in the streets or raise a ruckus in order to prove His Messiahship. He did, instead, do it through being quite. HOWEVER, the word "until" here DOES work in that He DOES raise quite the ruckus and proclaim His name in the street upon His second return. What occurs then? He brings justice through victory

Matt 16:28

I doubt that they will all fall over dead the moment they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom

"Until" doesn't provide a specific timeframe, merely that an action ceases. The person is protected UNTIL they see the comming of the Son of Man, after which, they are then allowed to die. It doesn't say that they WILL die immediately after seeing such a thing, merely that they are then allowed to die. Likewise, no one is advocating that the moment Mary gave birth to Christ Jesus took her into another area of the stable and consumated the marriage, instead the language clearly dictates that they did have sexual intercourse sometime after Christ was born. Afterall, if she didn't, then she sinned.

I never met a guy who sighs as much as you do.

If I didn't have to deal with people infected with ignorance then I would have no need to sigh.

[Fiosh]

Matthew 12:20 " he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory"

This is not to say that He WILL then break a bruised reed .

I don't think you understand what is being said. He is saying He is not the Messiah everyone expected, that He will not proclaim His name in the streets or raise a ruckus in order to prove His Messiahship. He did, instead, do it through being quite. HOWEVER, the word "until" here DOES work in that He DOES raise quite the ruckus and proclaim His name in the street upon His second return. What occurs then? He brings justice through victory

Matt 16:28

I doubt that they will all fall over dead the moment they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom

"Until" doesn't provide a specific timeframe, merely that an action ceases. The person is protected UNTIL they see the comming of the Son of Man, after which, they are then allowed to die. It doesn't say that they WILL die immediately after seeing such a thing, merely that they are then allowed to die. Likewise, no one is advocating that the moment Mary gave birth to Christ Jesus took her into another area of the stable and consumated the marriage, instead the language clearly dictates that they did have sexual intercourse sometime after Christ was born. Afterall, if she didn't, then she sinned.

I never met a guy who sighs as much as you do.

If I didn't have to deal with people infected with ignorance then I would have no need to sigh.

* sigh *

[apothanein kerdos]

Matthew 12:20 " he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory"

This is not to say that He WILL then break a bruised reed .

I don't think you understand what is being said. He is saying He is not the Messiah everyone expected, that He will not proclaim His name in the streets or raise a ruckus in order to prove His Messiahship. He did, instead, do it through being quite. HOWEVER, the word "until" here DOES work in that He DOES raise quite the ruckus and proclaim His name in the street upon His second return. What occurs then? He brings justice through victory

Matt 16:28

I doubt that they will all fall over dead the moment they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom

"Until" doesn't provide a specific timeframe, merely that an action ceases. The person is protected UNTIL they see the comming of the Son of Man, after which, they are then allowed to die. It doesn't say that they WILL die immediately after seeing such a thing, merely that they are then allowed to die. Likewise, no one is advocating that the moment Mary gave birth to Christ Jesus took her into another area of the stable and consumated the marriage, instead the language clearly dictates that they did have sexual intercourse sometime after Christ was born. Afterall, if she didn't, then she sinned.

I never met a guy who sighs as much as you do.

If I didn't have to deal with people infected with ignorance then I would have no need to sigh.

* sigh *

I'm sorry, was there a coherent reply in there? You have, after all, ignored everything else brought up. Oh well, I'm used to it. You've faired better than the heat priest of a local Catholic school I debated a week ago.

[Pilgrim7]

Good try Denise,

They've taken over the topic. Sorry Pax, looks like no calm discussion this time.

God bless,

Dennis

[Guest shiloh357]

Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?

According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical. Protestantism, however, rejects Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?"

The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says both to listen to tradition as well as warning about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below.

In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:

For full article:

www.carm.org

[ruah brit]

Is everything thing we need to know contained in the Bible?

Yes. Here is the only lesson of scripture you need to know.

Lu 11

13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

Mt 7

11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Here is what follows once the Lord gives you "His Spirit".

Joh 15

26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.(Christ)

Joh 14

26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Joh 16

13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Denise

Denise, it sounds like you are saying that the Holy Spirit will tell you more than what is in the Bible. Am I understanding you?

Peace,

Fiosh

If there is more truth than what is written in the bible then the answer is yes.

Joh 16

13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth.

Co 2

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

Denise

[Pax]

I knew that when I started this thread it would be a heated debate, but I am disappointed that for some it has turned into name calling and negative comments. All I wanted anyone to do was prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible was all we needed know when it comes Christian faith and practice. After 50 post, no one has proved that the Bible is all we need. It seems as though with every post the frustration mounted and this when the negative comments began to flow.

I will keep this simple and to the point so that anyone can understand why Sola Scriptora isn't practical. First of all I will clear up what Sola Scriptora means. Sola Scriptora (Scripture alone) is a Protestant doctrine that states Sacred Scripture holds every point of Christian theology- everything pretaining to faith and practice must be verifiable from the Bible alone. A very important part of this doctrine is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority). Any person who truely believes in Sola Scriptora will also demand that they have an absolute right of private judgement in the interpretation of the Bible. Each individual will have the final say to decide for himself or herself what is the correct interpretation of a praticular passage. Each individual is their own theologian. Hence we have Shiloh and Super Jew along with many other people who are their own theologians. How practical is this?

If every Christian takes on this role as being their own theologian. How consistent will this be? What happens when one person reads a passage in the Bible and comes up with a different conclusion? Who is the right theologian? Protestant pastors have had to deal with this since the time of Luther. These pastors must preach private judgment of scriptures to ensure their own right to interpret scripture, but they must limited this to members of their congregation or else their church will be torn with strife. It has been the failure to prohibit the right of private judgement of the scriptures that has resulted in thousands of different Protestant Christian denominations. Some people will say the differences between denominations are only superficial and minor. These differences are major theological issues such as: What kind of faith saves, is Baptism necessary, Infant Baptism, Can I lose my salvation, If so can I get it back and how, Real presence, speaking in tongues, predestination, free will, and Chruch goverment. These are not superficial small differences. The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, each teaching different doctrines on key theological issues, is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of Sola Scriptora. There are still other pratical failures in Sola Scritora.

Remember earlier I pointed out that a true believer of Sola Scriptora must interpret scripture for themselves and come up with their own conclusions. If God intended for each one of us to do this, than each one of us must have his or her own Bible. So what happened before the printing press and the mass manufacturing of books? Without this than the idea of Sola Scriptora couldn't of existed because there simply weren't enough Bibles and the average Christian would have either no access or limited access to a Bible. Even after the printing press was producing mass numbers of the Bible how were they to be distributed? Most of the world was undeveloped. Mass distribution of the Bible would of been impossible, and even today it difficult to get the Bible into the average Chirstians hands. What about universal literacy. Not all of the world can read the Bible. And hardly any of us can read both Greek and Hebrew like Super Jew. So how are the millions of Christians around the world who are illiterate suspose to be their own theologian and interpret the Bible?

So what if a Christian has a Bible and can read does that person have the adequate skills to be their own theologian and interpret the Bible? The average Pastor of a Church needs tons of support materials to formulate his views about scripture. Do you think God expected the average Christian to not only have a Bible, but also support materials to intrepret scripture? That average Christian would need even more support material to form his or her views than a pastor who has had training. Also there is a time factor. How much time do you think a Pastor spends studying scripture? EricH went to seminary for years and is still probably studying scripture on a daily basis. Is the average Christian going to have this time. No way. Then we have to consider critical thinking skills of the average Christian. To beleive in Sola Scriptora we also have to believe that the average Christian will have a high level of critial thinking skills. This of course is not the case.

In summary Sola Scriptora presupposes 6 things:

1.) The existance of the printing press.

2.) The universal distribution of Bibles.

3.) Universal Literacy.

4.) The universal possession of scholary support materials.

5.) The universal possession of adequate amount of time to study.

6.) A universal education in a high level of critial thinking skills.

Needless to say, these conditions were not met in the crucial early centuries of the Church, were not met through the main course of Church history, and is not met today. The non existance of the printing press alone means Sola Scriptora was unthinkable for almost three quarters of Church history.

Sola Scriptora was a theory thought up by a group of Renaissance era people who had a interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had plenty of time for study, who had plenty of support materials, who had good reading skills, who access to printed Bibles. The average Christian today doesn't even fit this profile, much less did the average Christian in the early centuries.