Sola scriptura

[DTENG]

I really appreciate the responses. Looking back, however, I think I may not have been clear about my doubts. My doubt stems from the idea that the Bible alone "Sola" provides all of God's truth. This is what I cannot find in the Bible.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Bible actually seems to refute this doctrine.

[DTENG]

Well, computers are a wonderful thing when it comes to doing searches. Try as I might, I cannot find a single verse that supports the doctrine of Sola scriptura (that the Bible alone provides all of God's truth). If the Bible alone provides all of God's truth, it would have also conveyed this doctrine.

As a side note, the Bible also does not list all of the books that should be contained in the Bible??? So again, the doctrine of Sola scriptura fails.

At this point, for me, this doctrine makes no sense and is not Biblical.

That being said, a key verse that needs to be understood is 1 Timothy 3:16. It seems clear from this verse that the foundation of truth is not the Bible, but the church.

[SelfGovernor]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

No mention of a Church/Priest/Pastor needed to be complete. However God did make us to be social beings so we do need fellowship (Church...).
Worship also draws use closer to him as well.

That being said, a key verse that needs to be understood is 1 Timothy 3:16. It seems clear from this verse that the foundation of truth is not the Bible, but the church.
Reply With Quote

I don't read this the way you do:

1 Timothy 3:14-16 14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

The word church means assembly, gathering, congregation, etc:

1577 ekklesia {ek-klay-see'-ah}
Meaning: 1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly 1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating 1b) the assembly of the Israelites 1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously 1d) in a Christian sense 1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting...

"The living God" is the pillar and ground of the truth, not Timothy's congregation or any other congregation (read Corinthians?).
The punctuation fits the English translation but does not exist in the original Greek.

I am studying the history of the Church. I don't think I can ignore the history of the Church when studying scripture.

The Roman Church was in charge for over a thousand years. Following the work of Christ, this Should have been the most enlightened time in human history. Yet after multitudes of wars, scandals and moral hypocrisy, history generally refers to this time as The Dark Ages...

Even to this day with never ending Priest scandals and an openly socialist Pope it is obvious that there is no human Vicar of Christ. So if we are to follow scripture and tradition, what tradition are we to follow?

SG

[RAMCLAP]

Given all of the epistle's to all of the churches in the NT ripping them for their horrible behavior and bad doctrine, I'll take the Word of God over the word of men any day. Jesus personally attacked the Pharisee's for their made up traditions that enslaved the people. He also did not say that ,"man does not live by bread alone. But by every word that comes from the church." No, from God. The Word of God endures forever.

[wpage]

Gods word is true. However, written by men and translated as well by men. Things can be lost as they say in translation...

The bible is true. When king James commissioned the translations most of us are familiar with. The latin and Greek verses were interpreted by scholars as best they were capable and inspired.

[an actual gun]

I have been really digging into this of late. The scriptures being referred to here (Acts 17:11) by first century Christians is the Septuagint. The Bible, as it exists today (New Testament), did not come together until almost 400 A.D.

That being said, I am still looking for those passages.

I don't think you'll find them. Acts is not part of the Septuagint but you're otherwise right, the vulgate (the first complete Bible with a canon roughly matching today's, in Latin) was not finished until around 400 A.D. in the early middle ages, by St Jerome, who took the Old Latin Verses of the Gospel, revised them, and compiled them with finished translations of the Old Testament. This was commissioned by Damasus I. Besides the completion of the vulgate, I believe the first attempts at making a complete bible came in the middle of the 300s, under Constantine, with Greek translations. These books and writings obviously existed longer separately but most people did not have access to them, certainly not in the compiled form of the Bible as we know it today. Sola scriptura as a doctrine did not come until the 16th century. By my humble understanding, if the question is scripture versus tradition, then the doctrine of sola scriptura is itself a tradition. Just a much younger one than those others the rest of the Reformers wanted to revise or abolish.

[colossians323]

I have been searching the Bible and have been unable to find this doctrine. Can someone point me to the verse(s) that instruct on this doctrine?

Have you ever seen the word "Trinity" in the bible? Yet you can see thre Trinity throughout the bible.

Here is a good expose for you to check out. It might create more questions, but it definitely should answer too

http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

[mif_slim]

Sola Scriptura, Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. /done.

[DTENG]

By my humble understanding, if the question is scripture versus tradition, then the doctrine of sola scriptura is itself a tradition. Just a much younger one than those others the rest of the Reformers wanted to revise or abolish.

This ^^^ Therein lies the problem. The doctrine claims the "Bible Alone" is all that is needed, yet sola scriptura itself is a tradition and came into being after over 1,500 years of Christianity. The logic puts in mind a dog chasing its tail.

[SelfGovernor]

This ^^^ Therein lies the problem. The doctrine claims the "Bible Alone" is all that is needed, yet sola scriptura itself is a tradition and came into being after over 1,500 years of Christianity. The logic puts in mind a dog chasing its tail.

For 1,500 years:
* Christians did not have the scriptures, only the clergy had them.
* Most people were illiterate and told what to believe.
* Only the dogmas from Rome were allowed to be taught.
* Those who challenged them were persecuted or killed. (Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, ...)

The Gutenberg printing press changed all of that.
Bibles were more accessible and the common people had a reason to learn to read.
As more people learned what the scriptures actually said, they started to mistrust the clergy.
History teaches that Sola Scriptura is absolutely the logical result.

As to whether something is tradition or not doesn't really matter, the real point is does the tradition agree with Scripture or Negate it?

There were many scripture passages quoted in this thread that support Sola Scriptura. Did you refute any of them?
Did you read my post #18 above?

How about the words of Jesus:

Mark 7:7-9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

SG

[RAMCLAP]

For 1,500 years:
* Christians did not have the scriptures, only the clergy had them.
* Most people were illiterate and told what to believe.
* Only the dogmas from Rome were allowed to be taught.
* Those who challenged them were persecuted or killed. (Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, ...)

The Gutenberg printing press changed all of that.
Bibles were more accessible and the common people had a reason to learn to read.
As more people learned what the scriptures actually said, they started to mistrust the clergy.
History teaches that Sola Scriptura is absolutely the logical result.

As to weather something is tradition or not doesn't really matter, the real point is does the tradition agree with Scripture or Negate it?

There were many scripture passages quoted in this thread that support Sola Scriptura. Did you refute any of them?
Did you read my post #18 above?

How about the words of Jesus:





SG

Well said SG. If Sola Scriptura is a tradition, at least the tradition is the Bible and not the traditions of fallen men. I'm still trying to find "Pope" in my bible.

[Sailormilan2]

Matt. 23:9. The Greek "pater" means "father". Though technically the word "Pope" comes from the Greek "Pappas".

[Sailormilan2]

RAMCLAP, my comment was meant in humor, as I knew what you meant. Unfortunately I am on my phone and cannot edit my comment.

[RAMCLAP]

RAMCLAP, my comment was meant in humor, as I knew what you meant. Unfortunately I am on my phone and cannot edit my comment.

Sorry friend. I don't remember commenting on anything you wrote. If I offended you I apologize.

[RAMCLAP]

My bad. I should have said "office of Pope". Of course it says call no man Pope except your Father in Heaven.