• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Sola Scriptura Unbiblical?

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
In the Greek there is no definite or indefinite article in this verse. People usually add a definite article in the other clauses and switch to an indefinite when it comes to the last clause that mentions the Church as a pillar and foundation of truth. There is no reason to be that inconsistent unless you're asserting a theological point.
Okay so which translations aren't biased?
I quoted the Bible to show that it points to something outside of itself. The Bible alone doesn't provide a way to determine what books belong in it, it points to authority outside of it
True. But the Bible also says that the word of God is preserved by God, doesn't it? (Isaiah 40:8)
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If one changes words in a book, does it change the prophecy itself?

Does it change the authority and nature of god and his dictated Words to add words to the physical bible?

If you distort its meaning while changing words it could change the prophecy. You seem to be trying to distort the simple meaning seeming to say changing the words themselves is what matters rather than the meaning. You should be a pope, that's probably their arguement for not allowing scripture to be translated into common languages.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

From: SOLA SCRIPTURA AND THE EARLY CHURCH - What did the Early Church believe about the authority of Scripture? • ChristianAnswers.Net
"Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture. Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not."

The references clearly indicate that scripture being "God- breathed" puts it as the standard above all other references that would not be considered 'Scripture.'

It is important that the Church Fathers belleved in 'Sola Scriptora' and a literal God inspired Genesis, and they are responsible for the Bible we have today.
 

watrewks

New Member
Okay so which translations aren't biased?

True. But the Bible also says that the word of God is preserved by God, doesn't it? (Isaiah 40:8)

Usually a translation is biased if it asserts a theological point that contradicts Christianity. The Church's authority isn't based on the verse alone but it shows that the Church indeed has authority even though Protestants assert otherwise.

God preserving his word doesn't mean that there won't be any confusion. Understanding the Bible does in fact take some critical analysis.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You have to ask a direct question or comment. I don't know what you're point is but here's my comment.

Hmmm... What do you think about John chapter 14 verse 26 when Jesus says that the Holy Spirit would bring to the Apostle's remembrance all that he had said to them?

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to.

It sounds like the Holy Spirit, who the Father will send in my (christ) name, will teach you (disciples) all things and will remind you of everything I said....

The key word: The Holy Spirit.

How does this relate to sola scriptura? and how is the Holy Spirit written scripture?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well, it is. There's a verse that says there would be more words than would be in scriptures. That, and god's Word is dictated-it's oral and passed on. He didn't mean literal words. We write things down for preservation. Most cultures pass down wisdom through oral tradition. Christianity isn't an exclusion.

Cite the verse please.

This is true, but the concept of 'Sola Scriptora' does not preclude other oral and written wisdom, but all other oral and written tradition must conform to scripture.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
How does this relate to sola scriptura? and how is the Holy Spirit written scripture?
2 Timothy 3:16... I don't know!... It's like it's saying that the prophets and apostles were just secretaries. *Wink* *Wink*

I'm sorry, I thought this would be funny. Lol
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Ignoring the little sarcasm.
If you distort its meaning while changing words it could change the prophecy

I asked him two questions not made statements of fact.

But what you're saying, I haven't heard it put that way. There's always some flowery language rather than getting to the point.

How does physically adding information to a physical bible change a literal event or prophecy?

That's like saying I changed WW2 history by scratching out half the history in a history book. I mean, we'd probably throw the history book away if it had an effect of changing real history for the best. Life doesn't work that way.

So, I don't understand how that makes sense.

You seem to be trying to distort the simple meaning seeming to say changing the words themselves is what matters rather than the meaning.

Religion makes people think there's supposed to be something "behind" words as if it makes it more divine.

If I added to a history book that does not change the course of history.
If I added to a book that predicts the world ending, my addition doesn't change whether it will happen or not.

Life doesn't work that way.

If your religion is a fact, it should work just as everything else in nature. Nothing mysterious.

You should be a pope, that's probably their arguement for not allowing scripture to be translated into common languages

I'm lost. I asked Shun questions. I didn't make statements. How does this relate?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
This is true, but the concept of 'Sola Scriptora' does not preclude other oral and written wisdom, but all other oral and written tradition must conform to scripture.

Yes.....

I wouldn't say the Dhamma can be related in part or in whole (or symbolically) to scripture because it's not based on it.

But if there are books outside the bible that are oral authority as was once in the OT before Hebrew scripture was written by Moses, the Word (play on words for word of authority-english) I wouldn't see how they would be different.

What are you disagreeing with?
 

watrewks

New Member
Good question. First step is considering the Bible as a collection of books each with their own fallibility. If they want to only us the books the bishops chose almost four hundred years after Christ was gone, then they should probably be sure they stick to their Catholic roots.
How were the books of the Bible chosen?

So the evidence points to the accounts of Jesus being written by either eyewitnesses or people that spoke with eyewitnesses. I agree, the bishops need to choose books that correspond to the teaching passed down from Christ. They would also need to make sure that the historical accounts presented in the texts were reliable so they would have to come from trusted sources.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Cite the verse please.

This is true, but the concept of 'Sola Scriptora' does not preclude other oral and written wisdom, but all other oral and written tradition must conform to scripture.

Ima look up the verses in a bit but

“Word” in Holy Scripture quite often refers to a proclaimed, oral word of prophets or apostles. They spoke the word of God, whether or not their utterances were later recorded in Scripture (see, e.g., Jer 25:3, 7-8). The oral “word” had equal authority. This was also true of apostolic preaching (1 Thess 2:13).

I thought it was just me and people of like mind. The Word is Oral. Written words preserve what's spoken not replace it.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Ignoring the little sarcasm.


I asked him two questions not made statements of fact.

But what you're saying, I haven't heard it put that way. There's always some flowery language rather than getting to the point.

How does physically adding information to a physical bible change a literal event or prophecy?

That's like saying I changed WW2 history by scratching out half the history in a history book. I mean, we'd probably throw the history book away if it had an effect of changing real history for the best. Life doesn't work that way.

So, I don't understand how that makes sense.



Religion makes people think there's supposed to be something "behind" words as if it makes it more divine.

If I added to a history book that does not change the course of history.
If I added to a book that predicts the world ending, my addition doesn't change whether it will happen or not.

Life doesn't work that way.

If your religion is a fact, it should work just as everything else in nature. Nothing mysterious.



I'm lost. I asked Shun questions. I didn't make statements. How does this relate?

Ok, lets say the prophecy was a weather forecast. If you change the prophecy that said; rain tomorrow, and called for a sunny day, that would make the forecaster look bad. People would lose faith in the forecaster. Also people would be planning picnics and getting rained on. But changing the words does not change the weather.
 

watrewks

New Member
If Jesus is always referring to Jewish books, even naming off several of them, what would Paul be pointing at as "scripture", the gospels?

The point is that Jesus didn't refer to every single book that is considered canon and neither did Paul. Jude referred to the book of Enoch, which isn't considered canon. In order for sola scriptura to be true, the bible would have to assert that it is true and give a list of inspired books. The Bible itself doesn't teach sola scriptura so believing it is indeed unbiblical.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
2 Timothy 3:16... I don't know!... It's like it's saying that the prophets and apostles were just secretaries. *Wink* *Wink*

I'm sorry, I thought this would be funny. Lol

Naw. Wouldn't say they were just secretaries, if you like. Just even jesus didn't give credit to his father's Words/dictations of law and authority to himself. He gave all the credit to his father.

The apostles gave all the credit of their words to christ. Christ wrote nothing.

Christians, well the sola scriptura ones, seem to hold on to the idea that John and Mathew different interpretation of the same event is more important than hearing it from the Holy Spirit (as you quoted) himself.

:shrug:

In other words, you guys aren't following the apostles and christ example in not taking credit for what they say and write.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
Naw. Wouldn't say they were just secretaries, if you like. Just even jesus didn't give credit to his father's Words/dictations of law and authority to himself. He gave all the credit to his father.
The apostles gave all the credit of their words to christ. Christ wrote nothing.
You've got to remember the concept of the Trinity. When Jesus speaks all three members of the Trinity speak with him. The same is true when the Holy Spirit speaks, Jesus and the Father speak with him too.
Christians, well the sola scriptura ones, seem to hold on to the idea that John and Mathew different interpretation of the same event is more important than hearing it from the Holy Spirit (as you quoted) himself.
Yes, that's a problem. Literalist interpretations are killer sometimes, they miss the point.
In other words, you guys aren't following the apostles and christ example in not taking credit for what they say and write.
You mean giving credit?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Ok, lets say the prophecy was a weather forecast. If you change the prophecy that said; rain tomorrow, and called for a sunny day, that would make the forecaster look bad. People would lose faith in the forecaster. Also people would be planning picnics and getting rained on. But changing the words does not change the weather.

lol I get your point now.

Real life example. I don't and can't drive. I walk or take the bus everywhere I go. Here it snowed just one day in the middle of summer. It rained three days when it was supposed to rain droplets for one. We just missed a hurricane north of us. So, what do I do, I go outside and smell the air. That tells me how the day will go, honestly.

I mean, you can follow people off the cliff if you want, but other religious kind of take a step back and look at everyone dropping like lemmings.

Nothing wrong with following the weather channel. The scripture you quoted also says uses your own senses as well. Don't watch just one channel (believe me, don't). Another thing is ya'll depend on commentaries but if something Catholic pops up, ya'll shoot for the moon.

I may understand it one day.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
The point is that Jesus didn't refer to every single book that is considered canon and neither did Paul. Jude referred to the book of Enoch, which isn't considered canon. In order for sola scriptura to be true, the bible would have to assert that it is true and give a list of inspired books. The Bible itself doesn't teach sola scriptura so believing it is indeed unbiblical.
Can't say I disagree, I will try harder next time.:)
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
So the evidence points to the accounts of Jesus being written by either eyewitnesses or people that spoke with eyewitnesses. I agree, the bishops need to choose books that correspond to the teaching passed down from Christ. They would also need to make sure that the historical accounts presented in the texts were reliable so they would have to come from trusted sources.
Yes I think we agree. Whether such authority exists would be a topic for another discussion.
 
Top