Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can’t agree with it because of your own religious indoctrination. If you did agree it would mean that very thing that is at the core of your religious beliefs is false. It’s a tough spot to be in.
Not a good answer. It's a huge mistake for you to assume that I'm indoctrinated but you're not. I've provided you with some very reasonable arguments and all you have done is resorted to an ad hominem instead of addressing them.
It is not only NOT scriptural but it is also the epitome of human ignorance, vanity, and hubris. Nowhere is it ever claimed to be the only source and Jesus specifically suggested that it is not sufficient. He said there was more that He wanted to teach but we were not ready for it. He said the Comforter (Holy Spirit) would teach us in His name.
The unwarranted belief that God was no longer inspiring us is primitive ignorance and superstition writ large. With the coming of the Comforter at Pentecost, we had the direct presence and influence of the Holy Spirit within our consciousness to inspire us. Primitive ignorance and the use of heresy has prevented any of those inspirations from ever being incorporated into the primitive dogma.
" Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. "
except that THAT verse is NOT in the bible, but ' the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth' IS! 1 Tim 3:15
How can the 'bible' be 'the pillar and foundation of the truth', when scripture itself says that the church is ?,
and wasn't 'the church' around a few hundred years even before 'the bible' was?
I got it from this website. It sounds pretty close to what you're saying. What do you see as the difference?
Fair enough. I'll go with that definition. I respect that site. I should have processed it more in my mind. I do not disagree with the idea that yes--Scripture is adequate to know God.
It was John Owen that said "If private revelations agree with Scriptures, they are needless. If they disagree, they are false."
The biggest inconsistency/contradiction I see in sola scriptura is the issue of the canon. Surely if God meant for us to have a compilation of books as the sole rule of faith, then that compilation would have within it a precise list of which books ought to be included.
Even RC Sproul, one of the most well respected Reformed pastors in recent memory and a strong advocate for sola scriptura conceded that the canon was a "fallible list of infallible books".
Interesting tidbit. Approximately 1.75 billion Christians, by far the majority of all Christians, are members of sects that do not believe in sola scriptura, but accept the full Traditions of the Church. And they are found in only 4 sects. The remaining 920 million Christians of Protestantism , which rejects the Traditions and largely hold to sola scriptura, minus some like the Lutherans, are divided into about 35,000 denominations, each of whom believes that their version of what scripture means is the correct one.
Sola scriptura doesn't seem to work, nor does it seem like a scheme God would come up with
1 Corinthians 11.2
I praise you because you remember me and hold firmly to the traditions as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2.15 Stand firm, hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by epistle.
The Sola Scriptura believers impoverish themselves spiritually by disregarding the traditions handed down verbally. They throw away many things that would enrich their faith.
I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that we are not in a position to be directly taught by Paul (or Jesus, or any of the disciples). Words that are not written down but just passed by word of mouth from one person to another tend to get added to, taken away from, and just mixed up, like the children's game of Telephone. The Reformers saw that some of the "traditions" contradicted the truth of the Scripture, and some were obviously the inventions of men (paying for indulgences...) After all, people in high positions can say whatever they want and claim it is the word of God. So the Reformers went back to what they knew they could trust, which was the written word of God.
Which of the written Scriptures were judged to be inspired and why is a different topic.
In addition to the canon issue,
God/Jesus never handed authority/the keys of Davidic kingdom to 'a book',
but rather to a steward/shepherd: Eliakim in Isaiah 22, and Peter in Matthew 16.
Granting authority/the keys to 'a book' is NOWHERE in the 'the book'.
These verses mean that all a person needs to know for salvation and for living the Christian life is found explicitly or implicitly in the Bible. Obviously, the Protestant reformers felt a need to crystallize this into a "doctrine" (Sola Scriptura) because the RC church had introduced aspects of theology which are not only not found in the Bible, but are antithetical to the message of the Bible.
This does not mean that the Bible is a "complete record of God's dealing with mankind," as the OP phrased it. We don't have a complete record--but we have what we need to know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Sola Scriptura scriptural?
