Sola Scriptura?

[tam]

Peace to you all,

On another thread, the topic of errors in scripture came up, and a member posted the following:

Sola Scriptura -- Scripture alone -- concerns the relation between Scripture and tradition, and affirms that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation, the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice... Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16); what Scripture says, God says

Do you see any flaws in the above description, and if so, what flaw (or flaws, if more than one) do you see? I see at least one (stands out like a flashing neon light to me), but I will wait to respond.


Peace again to you!

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to tam in post #1]

The obvious problem, IMHO, is what defines scripture? Is it scripture because it sits between the covers of the Bible? If so, which version and which translation of that version?

Even in this subforum, if the standard 66 books are considered scripture, that doesn't rule out other sources of scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does it say what it deems scripture. Technically, the passage given in the OP could mean that ONLY that original document is scripture and God breathed.

[William]

Yes - it is problematic and the cause of many disagreements.

What is Scripture? One could argue that it is only that which is related to the bible as the purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.

This is well and good because it gives us direction. However the problem which occurs is in individual/group interpretations of biblical script.

But in regard to the purpose of this subforum, while it doesn't outright say so, it tends to suggest that biblical script trumps any other religious based writing, regardless of whether it is Christian based or any other religions script....all of which - as is pointed out - could also be 'God Inspired'...which does little in the way of fostering tolerance and respect for all scripture as good source [God Inspired].

I say "First Be Ye God Breathed and then continue from That Place" and much of the confusion otherwise created should dissipate - for a lot of what is argued [Born Again - Trinity - True Christians - etc] is mostly based in tradition molded through biblical interpretation and is already second hand for that...

[2timothy316]

[Replying to tam in post #1]

The keywords I see here are scripture, faith and practice.

Should these ever be separated from one another?

[PinSeeker]

"Sola Scriptura," means the “Bible alone." But it seems there is much confusion on what is really meant by that, what was meant by the reformers at the time they set this and the other four solas forth. Some points to make:

First, Scripture is the supreme authority over the church. This is surely not to say that Scripture supercedes Christ in any way, as some might suppose. One of the solas is "Soli Christus," or "in Christ alone" (which I can address separately if needed; suffice it to say that according to "Soli, Christus," salvation can only be obtained in and through Christ alone). Scripture is all about Christ; even Christ Himself said this. And Christ is the word made flesh; He is the Word personified.

Second, "Sola Scriptura" does not mean Scripture is the only authority. Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers used other authorities like reason and tradition -- they developed arguments using logic (reason) and learned from the writings of past Christians (tradition) as they explored the Bible. Yet the Bible was and is the supreme authority that ruled reason and tradition because Scripture alone was (and is) infallible precisely because it is God’s word. All other authorities (including church leadership) and human reason and tradition were (and are) fallible and must submit to Scripture.

Another aspect to "Sola Scriptura" is the sufficiency of Scripture. The Catholic church in the sixteenth century affirmed that Scripture needed supplementation with various rituals and beliefs not be found in Scripture, but the reformers purpose was to point out that this is not the case. While there are many truths about many things that are not in Scripture, the Bible is sufficient for final salvation; Scripture equips believers with all that is needed to be saved and persevere to ultimate salvation.

A third element of "Sola Scriptura" is the clarity of Scripture. This does not mean that all of Scripture is crystal clear to every Christian, of course. It also does not signify that pastors or teachers or fellow believers are not needed to help us understand Scripture. The clarity of Scripture denotes that any person can read Scripture for themselves and discover the basic way of salvation. The reformers did agree that parts of Scripture were difficult to understand, as do we today, but these passages do not threaten the sufficiency of Scripture.

Hopefully that makes things at least a little clearer. I think the problem is that people are applying their own understandings -- misunderstandings, really -- of Sola Scripture to the concept of Sola Scriptura.

Grace and peace to all.

[William]

The Bible is not "Gods Word"

That is simply an idolatrous belief

[tam]

Peace to you all, and thank you all for responding!


I will respond to you all, but I am going to respond to the OP question myself as well:

Sola Scriptura -- Scripture alone -- concerns the relation between Scripture and tradition, and affirms that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation, the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice... Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16); what Scripture says, God says

While I absolutely agree with what was first mentioned by benchwarmer (post 2), I bolded and underlined the major flaw that stands out to me.

Scripture is absolutely not the sole source of divine revelation. Never mind that it could not possibly be the sole source of divine revelation or there would be no scripture to begin with, that definition of "Sola Scriptura" leaves Christ out, even puts scripture above Christ <- yet it is Christ who is the Word of God, Christ who is the Truth, Christ whose voice we are to listen TO.

Even IN what is written (though this is testimony rather than scripture), God said, "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."


Is Christ not the source of divine revelation as the Word of God? Is He not alive? Does He not speak, and call His sheep by name, and lead them? Do His sheep not listen to HIS voice, and follow HIM? Where is the faith in Him?


Someone who does not have faith in Him, I can understand them looking to the 'bible' for truth, for answers, for authority, for 'divine revelation'. But to someone who does have faith in Him, why not simply listen to Him, come straight to the source? At the very least have faith that you CAN come to Him, straight to the source, and ask for ears to hear, so as to hear the truth from THE Truth.

**

Anyway, though there are other errors, that is the biggest error that stands out to me.





Peace again to you, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ Jaheshua,
tammy

[William]

Peace to you all, and thank you all for responding!


I will respond to you all, but I am going to respond to the OP question myself as well:

Sola Scriptura -- Scripture alone -- concerns the relation between Scripture and tradition, and affirms that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation, the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice... Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16); what Scripture says, God says

While I absolutely agree with what was first mentioned by benchwarmer (post 2), I bolded and underlined the major flaw that stands out to me.

Scripture is absolutely not the sole source of divine revelation. Never mind that it could not possibly be the sole source of divine revelation or there would be no scripture to begin with, that definition of "Sola Scriptura" leaves Christ out, even puts scripture above Christ <- yet it is Christ who is the Word of God, Christ who is the Truth, Christ whose voice we are to listen TO.

Even IN what is written (though this is testimony rather than scripture), God said, "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."


Is Christ not the source of divine revelation as the Word of God? Is He not alive? Does He not speak, and call His sheep by name, and lead them? Do His sheep not listen to HIS voice, and follow HIM? Where is the faith in Him?


Someone who does not have faith in Him, I can understand them looking to the 'bible' for truth, for answers, for authority, for 'divine revelation'. But to someone who does have faith in Him, why not simply listen to Him, come straight to the source? At the very least have faith that you CAN come to Him, straight to the source, and ask for ears to hear, so as to hear the truth from THE Truth.

**

Anyway, though there are other errors, that is the biggest error that stands out to me.





Peace again to you, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ Jaheshua,
tammy

Generally the problem with Christianity is that there is nothing scriptural which is also not able to be interpreted. Thus we are offered differing interpretations and witness to inter-Christian arguments which - because of their non-negotiability - render all equally fallible in the eyes of those observing that behavior.

Your particular argument means that in theory one doesn't even need knowledge of the bible in order to serve Christ, and that bringing biblical interpretation into the situation would only muddy the waters in relation to that, as it obviously is proven to do so.

The obvious in this case is that with the bible being interpreted as "The Word of God", one has to reply on only that 'which is written' even in regard to serving Christ, so even if Christ told one to believe 'such and such', if 'such and such' is not 'written', then one can dismiss what the Christ wants one to know, in preference to "what is written' therefore "what is written" is the relationship one is having - with the bible [word of God] rather than relationship with the Christ [Word of God] in Spirit - the bible trumps...and you have argued as much with me in the past - that if it isn't 'in the bible' then you reject it.

From an observers position it is clear that those arguing as much, are confused as to whom they actually serve because they believe that serving one [the Bible] is serving the other...[The Christ]

[2timothy316]

Even IN what is written (though this is testimony rather than scripture), God said, "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."

Should we listen to Jesus? Yes absolutely! Why? Peter said it best, "You have the words of eternal life." - John 6:68.

Where does Jesus get his information?

Romans 11:36 says. "For from him and through him and to him are all things." That would include the Bible. Where does he get his information to put into the Bible?
John 5:19 says, "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise."
John 12:49 says, "For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak."

Those that think Jesus is saying something different than what the Bible says have not considered that what is in the Bible came through Jesus. Everything comes through him, that includes the Bible. Revelation even states this in it's first sentence, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him." - Rev 1:1.

Therefore a person can listen to Jesus and still be Sola Scriptura. Even Jesus used the Scriptures to defend himself against Satan and not his own words. Even Jesus was Sola Scriptura. (Matthew 4:1-11)

[PinSeeker]

Sola Scriptura -- Scripture alone -- concerns the relation between Scripture and tradition, and affirms that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation, the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice... Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16); what Scripture says, God says

While I absolutely agree with what was first mentioned by benchwarmer (post 2), I bolded and underlined the major flaw that stands out to me.

Scripture is absolutely not the sole source of divine revelation. Never mind that it could not possibly be the sole source of divine revelation or there would be no scripture to begin with, that definition of "Sola Scriptura" leaves Christ out, even puts scripture above Christ...

It most assuredly, absolutely, postively does not. It's actually affirming of Him.

Grace and peace to all.