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.
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
If you believe this to be true, where in the Bible do you find it taught? Personally, I don't believe it's there. Yes, the Bible does say, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." but that's not saying that the Bible is a complete record of God's dealings with mankind. That's kind of like saying that "all grapes are fruit" is comparable to saying, "Grapes are the only fruit."
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
Where did you get this definition? I don't know anyone that uses that.
A correct statement would be: " Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. "
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
If you believe this to be true, where in the Bible do you find it taught? Personally, I don't believe it's there. Yes, the Bible does say, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." but that's not saying that the Bible is a complete record of God's dealings with mankind. That's kind of like saying that "all grapes are fruit" is comparable to saying, "Grapes are the only fruit."
Why did you not include verses 15 & 17?
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
I don't see that they really change anything. All scripture is given by inspiration; I agree with that. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. I agree with that, too.
I just don't agree that everything which is inspired, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction is found in the Bible, and that anything outside of the Bible is to be disregarded or at least considered unreliable.
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
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.
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.
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.
I agree
And what we see with the various denominations that have evolved from those Protestant reformers they themselves do the same thing of introducing various interpretations, translations, philosophies and theologies
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.
How do you know that we have what we need to know?
I mean, stop for a minute and think about John 21:25, which states: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
Jesus' ministry was for roughly three years. Much of what is in each one of the gospel accounts (i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) of that ministry is repetitive. In other words, the same stories are told in two or three of the different accounts. If you were to remove the duplications, and were to just have one account of all of Jesus' teachings, it would be very, very small. Given the fact that all of the books in the world could not contain everything that Jesus said and did during His ministry, you've got to at least consider the possibility that He was doing more than talk about the predicted storm over the Sea of Galilee or the fact that he needed a new pair of sandals. I suspect He was in the process of teaching His gospel for 10 or 12 hours a day over the three year period covered in the Bible, and that the vast, vast majority of the things He was saying were of real importance. And after His resurrection, He spent 40 more days among His closest associates. None of what He said to them is recorded in scripture. How can anyone believe that, given the fact that He knew He would soon be ascending to His Father in Heaven, He wouldn't have just packed the days with His wisdom and knowledge?
Then, too, you have the history of the scriptural canon. Certain epistles that were once considered "God-breathed" were later dropped from what has now supposedly become "all we need to know." How can this be explained?
Or maybe we don't need to know anything at all. I'm sure there are people on this forum who believe that to be the case.
I don't see that they really change anything. All scripture is given by inspiration; I agree with that. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. I agree with that, too.
I just don't agree that everything which is inspired, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction is found in the Bible, and that anything outside of the Bible is to be disregarded or at least considered unreliable.
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.
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.
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. 