• 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?

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
If any sort of theological position is to be proven using the Bible, then it must follow that the Bible has to teach that only the Bible is the source of theological truth. What would you say if someone said that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical?

All arguments for the bible being the words of any sort of "god" are circular, the most pathetic and obvious type of logical fallacy. They always begin with the claim that the bible says it is god's word, therefore it must be god's word. By that logic, they should also believe me if I write "This is the word of God" followed by a list of requests on a scrap of toilet paper.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
All arguments for the bible being the words of any sort of "god" are circular, the most pathetic and obvious type of logical fallacy. They always begin with the claim that the bible says it is god's word, therefore it must be god's word. By that logic, they should also believe me if I write "This is the word of God" followed by a list of requests on a scrap of toilet paper.
Whaa?
Why would belief in the Bible neccesitate belief in your writings? The fact is, 'sola scriptura' is obviously the preeminent tradition in xianity, for many reasons.
The problem is that many do not really understand how that idea works.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Whaa?
Why would belief in the Bible neccesitate belief in your writings? The fact is, 'sola scriptura' is obviously the preeminent tradition in xianity, for many reasons.
The problem is that many do not really understand how that idea works.

Because the same logic used to declare the bible as "god's word" could be applied by me to any of my writings if I wanted to claim they were god's word. It is circular reasoning (it's god's word because it says it is).
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Because the same logic used to declare the bible as "god's word" could be applied by me to any of my writings if I wanted to claim they were god's word. It is circular reasoning (it's god's word because it says it is).
I don't think most actual religious people just believe the bible solely because it states it's authority. That seems to vary, imo.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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.

I cited sufficient scripture and the Church Fathers and I will cite more. Stating ALL Christian ideas must be in harmony with scripture is the essence of 'Sola Scriptora.' Sola Scriptora simply states that scripture is the only standard, which what you state remains the case.

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".

I will start a thread on this, and yes most of the Church Fathers supported a literal Genesis. You need to cite St. John if you make this claim.

Be prepared to respond to the thread.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Whaa?
Why would belief in the Bible neccesitate belief in your writings? The fact is, 'sola scriptura' is obviously the preeminent tradition in xianity, for many reasons.
The problem is that many do not really understand how that idea works.

Please explain in your words how this works.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I don't think most actual religious people just believe the bible solely because it states it's authority. That seems to vary, imo.

This what I call 'juggling the books' to make them comfortable to deal with in today's world. This results in many churches, each going its own way. By the belief in many churches, and the polls, at least a plurality if not a majority of Christians believe in a literal Genesis, and 'Sola Scriptora.'
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Because the same logic used to declare the bible as "god's word" could be applied by me to any of my writings if I wanted to claim they were god's word. It is circular reasoning (it's god's word because it says it is).
That really is too simplistic and unrealistic.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
With all due respect, it very clearly *is* circular reasoning.

Eh? no, it really isn't.
Circular reasoning would be, if the claim to authority, is claimed to be held, because of the authority of the Bible. That claim isn't made.
The Bible is authoritative because the authorship is authoritative . The authorship would be authoritative, whether the Bible was written, or not.

Ie the claim to authority is direct, not 'circular'.
 
Last edited:

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
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)?
From my previous quote: Thus, having just one scripture is at times sufficient, at times not at all.

I need to explain that statement. At times, there are scriptures, that are seemingly talking about a subject, such as the Lake of Fire, the fires of Gehenna, that seem to indicated a Hell of torment or other dogma. In that case, it is necessary to include the entire OT & NT to get a harmonious teaching because there is no hell of torment.

Thus my beliefs are totally by the Bible. That is what stands as authority for my faith.
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
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.
My testing block for any teaching is the OT and NT. If the tradition doesn't agree with this, then it is not acceptable. It must be rejected in that case.

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
This statement I strongly disagree with. The NT contains strong evidence for how it was formed.
Please see this link: >Truth Seeker - The New Testament<
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
From my previous quote: Thus, having just one scripture is at times sufficient, at times not at all.

I need to explain that statement. At times, there are scriptures, that are seemingly talking about a subject, such as the Lake of Fire, the fires of Gehenna, that seem to indicated a Hell of torment or other dogma. In that case, it is necessary to include the entire OT & NT to get a harmonious teaching because there is no hell of torment.

Thus my beliefs are totally by the Bible. That is what stands as authority for my faith.
Do you trust that you live by your beliefs? What about 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Matthew 7:1-3?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
From my previous quote: Thus, having just one scripture is at times sufficient, at times not at all.

I need to explain that statement. At times, there are scriptures, that are seemingly talking about a subject, such as the Lake of Fire, the fires of Gehenna, that seem to indicated a Hell of torment or other dogma. In that case, it is necessary to include the entire OT & NT to get a harmonious teaching because there is no hell of torment.

Thus my beliefs are totally by the Bible. That is what stands as authority for my faith.

I was asking you to reflect on another perspective.

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)?

Wouldn't it be determining your experience and truth based on the physical bible would be considered idolism? (As opposed to what scripture says, determine your experience on christ first who points to the bible not the other way around)

To many god-faiths, the religious talk to god directly. They use scripture as commentary and scripture is equally important. Would their scripture and their conversation directly with god both be equally important even though they don't use scripture as their idol to whom they believe in?

These are questions that are not meant to challenge or change your faith.
 

JesusBeliever

Active Member
Okay but doesn't it follow that in order to have the Bible there needs to be an authority outside the BIble to determine what is considered the word of God?
And that Authority is the Holy Spirit, the free gift given to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ!

"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" John 7:37-39

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:27
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
I was asking you to reflect on another perspective.

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)?

Wouldn't it be determining your experience and truth based on the physical bible would be considered idolism? (As opposed to what scripture says, determine your experience on christ first who points to the bible not the other way around)

To many god-faiths, the religious talk to god directly. They use scripture as commentary and scripture is equally important. Would their scripture and their conversation directly with god both be equally important even though they don't use scripture as their idol to whom they believe in?

These are questions that are not meant to challenge or change your faith.
While in some religions there is direct communication with the entity that one tries to communicate with, in the Bible we are asked to pray to God, but he does not answer us in voice or verbal communication.

Our scripture contains all that we have, this permits us to verify all things verbal with a solid written record so that all things must harmonize with the written word to have meaning. We are told to verify our inspired prophetic matters with the written word, if such occurs.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
While in some religions there is direct communication with the entity that one tries to communicate with, in the Bible we are asked to pray to God, but he does not answer us in voice or verbal communication.

Our scripture contains all that we have, this permits us to verify all things verbal with a solid written record so that all things must harmonize with the written word to have meaning. We are told to verify our inspired prophetic matters with the written word, if such occurs.

I agree completely (almost).

IMV, even though He does not speak in verbal communication, there are ways that are almost verbal. Dreams, visions and even what sounds like a voice but not a voice as we understand it. However, as you said, it must be verified with the written word.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
While in some religions there is direct communication with the entity that one tries to communicate with, in the Bible we are asked to pray to God, but he does not answer us in voice or verbal communication.

Our scripture contains all that we have, this permits us to verify all things verbal with a solid written record so that all things must harmonize with the written word to have meaning. We are told to verify our inspired prophetic matters with the written word, if such occurs.

That would be a very different approach as to what I would do. Only a few religions I know talks through someone and/or sacred text to talk to god(s). Most talk to god directly. I guess it makes more sense if you love someone and told their friends to write a book about that person but you had the option to talk with your friend directly and hear your friend, wouldn't it be wise to check the book if it aligns with what your friend says rather than align your friends words (doubt him, basically) to align what his friend's say about him?

Sometimes I use an analogy as to see it a it more objective and from another person's point of view. Does that make sense?
 
Top