1. 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!

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Uncertaindrummer, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Not sure if this thread has been posted but I didn't see it anywhere. Anyhow, I am curious how "Bible Only" Christians on here would defend their doctrine that the Bible is our only rule of Faith and is completely sufficient in every way for our Salvation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,864
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It has been my experience that many non-catholic Christians are beggining to stay away from this topic. Perhaps some of our other brethen will tell us why?

    ~Victor
     
  3. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,939
    Ratings:
    +28,665
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Im not wanting to debate, Im just wondering what Sola Scriptura is supposed to mean. Is supposed to be using scripture exclusivly to back faith up?
     
  4. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    It's supposed to mean that they use only the text of the Scriptures as a basis for faith eschewing all tradition. This, of course, begs the question of where on earth their complete and self-sufficient Scripture comes from. We don't have a once and for all revealed text like Islam. Our Scriptures were written and collected by the Church and therefore Scripture's contents is part of our Holy Tradition. It has seemed to me for many years that a rejection of all tradition, then, if consistent must also result in a rejection of Scripture itself. But who ever accused sola scripturalists of consistency?

    James
     
  5. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Sola Scriptura means Scripture Only. The Bible is our Operations Manual, so to speak.
     
  6. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Absolutely true, but this logically begs the question as to where in Scripture that Scripture is defined. I cannot see how it is logically possible to adhere to strict sola scriptura without eventually rejecting said Scripture. I, like UD, would be interested to see how sola scripturalists would defend their reliance on Scripture alone, particularly with reference to the formation of the canon. I don't, honestly, believe it can be done.

    James
     
  7. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Defend their reliance on Scripture alone ... against what?

    And as far as canon ... that is divine design.

    Witness:

    The OT consists of 39 books, laid out as follows:

    12 books of history - 5 books of poetry - 12 books of prophecy

    Of the 12 books of history: 1st 5 are books of Moses ... last 12 are basic history.

    Of the 12 books of prophecy: 1st 5 are major prophets ... last 12 are minor prophets.

    Perfect balance.
     
  8. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Correct: 12 should be 17 in this post. Sorry. It's too early in the morning to count right now!
     
  9. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Not true. Your post-Reformation reduced canon of Scripture only has 39 OT books, but this is not the Church's original canon. The original OT canon of the Church was the Septuagint, which contains books Protestants have expunged. Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox all have more OT books than Protestants and always have had, so part of your defence of sola scriptura (likewise a Reformation era doctrine - nobody prior to the protests against Rome holding to it) would have to be why, based on Scripture alone, these books were removed. You'd also have to explain, using Scripture alone, why you have the books of the NT you have (I can answer this, but it won't be based on Scripture alone) and why you didn't eventually remove certain other books that the Reformers thought spurious, such as the Epistle of James that Luther so hated, and why you never thought to add certain books that historically were (and in some cases still are - the Ethiopian Orthodox NT is larger, for instance) part of at least some historical Christian canons. Until you can define exactly what is or is not Scripture coherently, I can't see how you can claim to base your faith on Scripture alone without the phrase becoming meaningless.

    James
     
  10. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    What do you mean "not true"? Just look on the contents page and count them yourself.

    Genesis - Esther = 17 books
    Job - Song of Solomon = 5 books
    Isaiah - Malachi = 17 books

    I am not ... nor have I ever been ... a Protestant.

    Why do I have the NT books that I have? Because God said He would filter out anything that didn't belong - (Psalm 12:6-7). This includes all pseudepigrapha and apocrypha.
     
  11. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    What I meant by 'not true' is exactly what I said. Exactly which contents page would you like me to use? Yours, mine, the Roman Catholics, the Ethiopians? You have the shortest OT canon (and whether you consider Baptists to be Protestant or not, you use the Protestant canon, adhere to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura and, consequently, look very Protestant to me) currently used by any Christian group. The vast majority of Christians (Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) have more than 39 OT books - so when you said the OT contains 39 books, I said it wasn't true because it isn't. It's only true of your post-Reformation reduced canon.

    If our books that you don't agree are Scripture were filtered out by God, could you explain how He did this and why He waited 1500 years before doing so? Could you explain how the canon was arrived at in the first place (bearing in mind that 'the canon' is a misleading phrase given that even in the undivided Church there were several)? Do you have any arguments at all that are better than the usually sola scripturalist circular logic of, they're in the Bible because they're Scripture and they're Scripture because they're in the Bible (And, of course, the corrolary of if they're not in my Bible then they're not true Scripture because the only true Scripture is my version of the Bible)?

    James
     
  12. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Do you remember asking me this? Now, when I reply to this, you say "which contents page? Yours, mine, the Roman Catholics, the Ethiopians"? Could you be specific then, as to which Scripture you were refering to in the above post?

    You also, I take it, want me to "defend my reliance on Scripture alone". I did .. citing Psalm 12:6-7. Now you want to know if I have "any arguments at all that are better than the usual sola scripturist circular logic".

    Make up my mind, please.
     
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,805
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    james you are flogging a dead horse here they will never agree.

    From my own view point as the Bible is an agreed collection of writings of early scripture, I would like to see an addendum of all early scriptural writings added as they are discovered with safeguards included, to inform why they are not in the main body of scripture. Also I would like to see the possibility of texts being promoted, so to speak, when scolarship and faith approve.
    I too am probably flogging a dead horse with that one.

    Terry
    ________________________________________
    Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
     
  14. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    I'm afraid that I don't know what you are asking. My point was that in order to say you base your faith on Scripture alone you first have to define what is Scripture. You, so far, seem to be unable to do this. You have given absolutely no reason to suppose that your reduced canon of Scripture is correct and mine is not. I adhere to the original OT of the Church - the Septuagint - because I am Orthodox. You do not. Unless you can identify what is or is not Scripture using Scripture alone then I do not believe you can possibly claim to adhere to sola scriptura. I claim no such thing and so have no difficulty defining what is or is not Scripture. As the canon of Scripture was settled over the course of centuries by the Church and not by any self evident list of Scriptures set within Scripture itself, I feel that sola scriptura is an impossibility and that adherents to this (really rather recent) doctrine are deluding themselves when they claim it is not.

    James
     
  15. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Terry,

    I wasn't really expecting sola scripturalists to agree. I was, however, hoping that someone who adheres to this doctrine might be able to come up with an intellectually defensible argument in for it. Having said that, it would be a first for me to come across such an argument so you may be correct that I am flogging a dead horse on this one.

    I agree with you on your general approach and I would point out that it is certainly not impossible (though probably unlikely) that our canon could be increased by a future council. In any case, we do not have a black and white Scripture/uninspired dichotomy like many Christians, so I can cheerfully read texts like the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas and find them spiritually beneficial without their having to be part of the canon.

    James
     
  16. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    I know of no other way of answering your questions. Luke asked what Sola Scriptura meant and I answered it. Case closed.

    I personally define Scripture as everything from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 in the King James Bible Only.

    It was good enough for the Pilgrims, and it's good enough for me.

    Like I say, it's very very easy to tell me what's wrong with the King James, but when I ask what it should say or shouldn't say, people suddenly get lockjaw.

    So with that in mind, I'll ask you a very simple question that I'm sure will give you lockjaw too: how many books should be included in Scripture (and please just answer with a number, that's all I'm asking).

    66? 60? 72? 55?

    If you don't know, just say so, okay?
     
  17. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    You haven't dealt with anything. Who told you that your Bible is the correct one? How do you know the Epistle of James is inspired? Where in the Bible does it say you should use ONLY the Bible? Where in the Bible does it list the CANON of the Bible? These are questions which SS defenders simply cannot answer.

    Here's a few more: How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? How do you know Mark wrote Mark? How do you know which translations are correct, and how do you knw the Jehova's Witnesses extremely distorted version of the Bible is not the correct one?
     
  18. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    1. 400 years of existence
    2. no copyright
    3. #1 bestseller of all time
    4. most attacked book in history, yet still going strong
    5. easiest to understand / has the plainest English
    6. its roots
    7. its translators
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God... (2 Timothy 3:16)

    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. - (Galatians 1:8-9)

    On the Content Page.

    Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

    You guys sure like to ask questions!

    Probably because it has their name on the Book.

    The King James translators, with God's help, settled that for me.

    No comment ... I'm not here to bash their documentation.
     
  19. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,259
    Ratings:
    +638
    I don't think that people who believe that the Bible contains the complete word of God are familiar with the history of the bible and where it came from. I find it short-sighted to believe that every inspired word ever written was included in the book. We can find inspiration to lead a good life all around us.

    God speaks to us in many ways. We should not put limitations on Gods ability to inspire people to write and teach his word. Just because something isn't cannonized, doesn't mean that it isn't inspired. The only way to know if something is from God is to build a personal relationship with him and ask him yourself.
     
  20. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    ITS THE BEST SELLING BOOK OF ALL TIME!!! That is hwo you decide your religion? So if the Bible ever falls out of favor and the Qu'ran takes its place as the best seeling book of all time, you would becoem a Muslim?

    And if your bible has only existed for 400 years... you have a problem. Plenty of books have no copyright, that is laughable. Who cares if its attacked? That says nothing to its validity. Easy to UNDERSTAND?! What on blasted Earth? Its roots and its translators? Do you realize how ridiculous incompelte and uselss your list of "reasons" is?



    Like I said; HOW DO YOU KNOW James is Scripture. Oh wait. You don't.

    Dude, this proves MY point. Paul tells us to listen to HIS gospel. He doesn't say "read a book" or something liek that. He says listen to what was PREACHED to you.

    Are you telling me the content page is inspired?

    Mostly because you have no answers/

    PEOPLE put those names there. They are not part of the inspired Canon. EVERY GOSPEL is anonymous! You have no way of knowing who wrote them.

    You think that the people who translated the King James Bible, people who were born over a millenium and a half AFTER Christ, have any authority? Where does it say THAT in the Bible?

    :rolleyes: So you DON'T know why you believe in yours instead of theirs. Figures.
     
Loading...