Is Sola Scriptura Unbiblical?

[Deidre]

Sola Sciptura simply means that the Bible is sufficient for a Christian to follow the faith. It's sufficient in terms of authority, in other words, it doesn't need anything or anyone outside of it to further teach the faith. I'd say that's true and therefore, it couldn't make sense that at the same time, it would be ''unbiblical.''

 

[Mister Silver]

What would you say if someone said that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical?

Going by the what the Sola Scriptura is, infallible is unrealistic.

 

[Grandliseur]

How do you square Sola Scriptura with 2 Thessalonians 2:15? We're told to hold fast to the traditions which were taught to us, whether by word (i.e. spoken, oral, not-written) or by epistle (what was actually written down and became the New Testament). So even the Bible tells us to use more than the Bible for doctrine and teaching.

I would think this self evident. Paul speaks to people in the then Christian system, not our systems of great variety. Thus, e.g. if you look at Acts

Acts 15:29: to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication; keeping yourselves from which ye will do well. Farewell.​

-- can you say that people in various denominations keep themselves from idols (Catholic church and others), from food that uses real blood in the ingredients, from fornication, adultery (seem prevalent among some Christians)?

Thus, our so-called traditions must not be pagan in origin, nor must these be unclean, or offend the scripture above. Paul also speaks about drunken bouts and what not. Our worship is to be pure in Christ, and if we put our traditions (of late making) ahead of scripture, we earn at the very least a demerit.

 

[Mister Silver]

Thus, our so-called traditions must not be pagan in origin, nor must the be unclean, or offend the scripture above. Paul also speaks about drunken bouts and what not. Our worship is to be pure in Christ, and if we put our traditions (of late making) ahead of scripture, we earn at the very least a demerit.

Oh, dear me, what to do with a christian religion that verily was created from paganism and incorporated pagan elements into its origin.

As far as Paul is concerned, he was in it for selfish reasons hidden behind holy ordinance, much like any religious person who hates on others while using the false veil of love.

 

[Shiranui117]

I would think this self evident. Paul speaks to people in the then Christian system, not our systems of great variety. Thus, e.g. if you look at Acts

Acts 15:29: to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication; keeping yourselves from which ye will do well. Farewell.​

-- can you say that people in various denominations keep themselves from idols (Catholic church and others), from food that uses real blood in the ingredients, from fornication, adultery (seem prevalent among some Christians)?

Thus, our so-called traditions must not be pagan in origin, nor must the be unclean, or offend the scripture above. Paul also speaks about drunken bouts and what not. Our worship is to be pure in Christ, and if we put our traditions (of late making) ahead of scripture, we earn at the very least a demerit.

Yes, and the teachings of the Church Fathers come from the Apostles. What we believe about Jesus, about God, about how to read the Bible, how to live as Christians, comes from the Apostolic Tradition (of which Scripture is but the keystone).

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

The c. Church did goof on various things, and the original texts, if not mainly in Hebrew and Aramaic, are in Greek. Many verses make sense in a Hebrew context, and can be lost in the other languages, without actually understanding the theology to a better degree. Hence certain branches of Protestantism.

 

[Grandliseur]

Oh, dear me, what to do with a christian religion that verily was created from paganism and incorporated pagan elements into its origin.

As far as Paul is concerned, he was in it for selfish reasons hidden behind holy ordinance, much like any religious person who hates on others while using the false veil of love.

If that is what you believe there is not much to share.

 

[Grandliseur]

Yes, and the teachings of the Church Fathers come from the Apostles. What we believe about Jesus, about God, about how to read the Bible, how to live as Christians, comes from the Apostolic Tradition (of which Scripture is but the keystone).

If with apostolic tradition you refer to what we find in the NT, in Acts, Peter, James, etc. - I totally agree.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thus, our so-called traditions must not be pagan in origin, nor must these be unclean, or offend the scripture above. Paul also speaks about drunken bouts and what not. Our worship is to be pure in Christ, and if we put our traditions (of late making) ahead of scripture, we earn at the very least a demerit.

Taking out denominational bias and misunderstanding, do you understand how written and oral traditions are supported in scripture? (Who, what, when, where isn't part of the question)

 

[Kenny]

As far as Paul is concerned, he was in it for selfish reasons hidden behind holy ordinance, much like any religious person who hates on others while using the false veil of love.

Interesting. Peter would not agree with you and he knew Paul personally and decided to agree with him " Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him." 2 Peter 3:15

But I'm sure you must be the expert coming to us 2,000 years later

 

[Grandliseur]

Taking out denominational bias and misunderstanding, do you understand how written and oral traditions are supported in scripture? (Who, what, when, where isn't part of the question)

Why don't you explain what you are talking about! Then, I can either let you know how I agree or disagree.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's an immense difference between "This can be proven from the Bible" and "This MUST be proven ONLY from the Bible".

My references made no such statement nor claim as you accuse. The concept of what is 'proven' here has nothing to do with the issue of scripture and tradition of 'Sola Scriptora.'

The clear intent of the Church Fathers who are responsible for the compilation of the New Testament was 'Sola Scriptora' and all other traditions and writings must be understood based on the scripture.

The belief that the scripture was God-breathed, and the authors of the Gospels of the New Testament were first person apostles, and witnesses of all the events. and Genesis is a literal true history written by Moses and divinely inspired supports the interpretation of 'Sola Scriptora.'

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why don't you explain what you are talking about! Then, I can either let you know how I agree or disagree.

Do you agree that written and oral traditions supported by (not always in) the bible are biblical?

 

[savagewind]

Faith should be about how a person lives his or her life.
The Bible says to, "be wise".
It takes a lot more than only the Bible for a person to live wisely.

 

[Grandliseur]

Do you agree that written and oral traditions supported by (not always in) the bible are biblical?

I would have to review each to be able to determine if I think such are in harmony with Biblical principles.
Personally, I have left all churches because I am a stickler for Biblical truth. All dogma must harmonize with the entire OT and NT. Thus, having just one scripture is at times sufficient, at times not at all.

 

[Lyndon]

So you believe if a woman is raped she must marry her rapist, as it says in Leviticus??

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you agree that written and oral traditions supported by (not always in) the bible are biblical?

The facts of the history of the scripture of the Bible is different from the claims of scripture, and the Church Fathers. The facts of the history of the compilation of scripture is in contradiction with the claims within the scripture for authorship, and 'Sola Scriptora,' and the beliefs and claims of the Church Fathers that compiled the New Testament,

As I said before this creates unsurmountable problems for those who reject or compromise the claims within the scripture, and the Church Fathers who compiled the NT to try and make things fit, alas results in many different churches, and a purality if not a majority of Christian believing in some form of a literal God-breathed Sola Scriptora, which is justified based on scripture and the Church Fathers,

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would have to review each to be able to determine if I think such are in harmony with Biblical principles.
Personally, I have left all churches because I am a stickler for Biblical truth. All dogma must harmonize with the entire OT and NT. Thus, having just one scripture is at times sufficient, at times not at all.

That makes sense. For me, tradition not in scripture-literally-isnt the point of jesus message. He was saying people place scripture over god the same as protestants claim they put their traditions over god. Each have their place.

Wouldnt determing your experience and truth based on the physical bible would be used as idolism as oppozed to many god-faiths that talk to god directly using their scrioture as commentary (equally important)?

 

[Shiranui117]

My references made no such statement nor claim as you accuse. The concept of what is 'proven' here has nothing to do with the issue of scripture and tradition of 'Sola Scriptora.'

The clear intent of the Church Fathers who are responsible for the compilation of the New Testament was 'Sola Scriptora' and all other traditions and writings must be understood based on the scripture.

Prove it. Because I saw no such thing. I see the Fathers stating that all Christian ideas must be in harmony with Scripture. But nowhere do I see "Sola Scriptura"--that is, that the Bible (scriptura) ALONE (sola) is the source of Christian doctrine.

The belief that the scripture was God-breathed, and the authors of the Gospels of the New Testament were first person apostles, and witnesses of all the events. and Genesis is a literal true history written by Moses and divinely inspired supports the interpretation of 'Sola Scriptora.'

The Fathers never stated that Genesis is a "literal true history". St. John Chrysostom actively argues against this idea, and all his interpretation of the creation stories are of a spiritual reading of Genesis, not a perspective of "This book is a literal description of exactly how creation took place".

 

[Shiranui117]

If with apostolic tradition you refer to what we find in the NT, in Acts, Peter, James, etc. - I totally agree.

No, that's not at all what I mean. Apostolic Tradition is ALL the teaching of the Apostles, not just the small bit of it that made it into the New Testament. The New Testament is only one tiny fraction of the entirety of Apostolic teaching. The rest of it was passed on from Apostle to student, from generation to generation. Apostolic Tradition is why we believe in the Trinity, why we believe in both Jesus' humanity and divinity, why we interpret Scripture the way we do, why we see the prophecies in the Old Testament as having their fulfillment in Christ. Apostolic Tradition is the only reason that the New Testament exists as it does today, for without it, the Church would never have had a way to put the NT together and decide what should be included and what should be excluded otherwise. We see the rest of the Apostolic Tradition in the writings of the Church Fathers--Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Antony the Great, Papias, Hippolytus of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, most of Origen, good bits of Clement of Alexandria, and dozens upon dozens of others throughout history. The Apostolic teachings passed down through the generations were proclaimed by these people, and finally written down.