• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sola Scriptura. Why?

phattonez said:
So how did Christianity survive after all of the apostles died and there was still no canon?
Click to expand...

Same way all other tradition was passed on. Word of mouth, written language for those who had one, etc... Perhaps through the offspring and wives of the apostles.

Supposedly St. Paul wrote the first Christian letters in mid first century AD. Which, IIRC, wouldn't have been too long after Jesus' ascension.
 
ludin said:
To spread his message. That was pretty simple.
The great commission didn't come till he ascended.

Pastors are the messengers Christ is the only way.
A pastor can lead you to salvation but not save you.
Click to expand...

Who said otherwise?
 
CrabCake said:
Not exactly. Prima scriptura is also a popular approach, particularly with the Wesleyan branches of Christianity which take the quadrilateral approach (scripture, tradition, reason, and experience).

We could also get into ways of reading the bible: dialogical vs monarchical views, etc. Which further muddy the waters.

It's not as clear cut as "protestants believe in sola scriptura, Catholics and Orthodox don't".
Click to expand...

How do you decide which tradition to accept and which to reject?
 
RAMOSS said:
When it comes to Sola Scriptura, one thing that always confused me.

What is the scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura? If it isn't in scripture, wouldn't that be a contradiction, because they are adding things to scripture (scripture alone) that isn't in scripture?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.
 
tosca1 said:
Sola Scriptura......because the Bible is God-breathed, complete, authoritative! We know that it is the Word of God!

If you read the Bible, you'd know that tradition (which is still practiced by the Catholic Church), some of its practices are contradictory to the Scriptures! While the Bible itself does not say Sola Scriptura, the Bible however, definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict the Scriptures!

The only way that we may know what is expected from us by God, is to stay true to what we know God has revealed to us!
While we definitely know that the Bible is reliable, and authoritative.....the same cannot be said of traditions!

Sola Scriptura is basing our spiritual life on the Bible alone.....and rejecting any traditions or teachings that isn't in full agreement with the Bible.
Click to expand...

Where did the Bible come from?
 
tosca1 said:
Is the Bible's authority based only on its availability?

Does a person's inability to read the Bible changes the fact that the Bible is God's Word?
Click to expand...

What authority did the early Christians rely on if there was no Bible?
 
tosca1 said:
The first church didn't take it literally!
Click to expand...

Evidence? Because all of the early writings show quite clearly that they believed in the Real Presence.
 
tosca1 said:
Yes, we shouldn't be adding anything to the Scriptures, especially something that is a contradiction to it.

When I was a Catholic, we call our priests "Father." That's directly against the Scriptures:




Matthew 23

Woe to the Scribes and Pharisees

23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Click to expand...

Which means that your interpretation is incorrect, because in Philemon 10, St. Paul calls himself a father.
 
Cryptic said:
Please don't try. Doing so is contrary to both Judaism and Christian tradition. Neither religion was ever sola scriptura. Rather, the religious messages of both religions are meant to be passed on by teaching authorities. Some aspects of the Bible have no clear literal teaching. For example:

Is divorce permitted?
Can I be forced to serve in the military?

If you are a woman and truly trying to be sola Scriptura, be mindful of the following:

Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean. 21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening Leviticus 15:19-33

Likewise, there are other verses:
- Exodus 22:18King James Version (KJV): Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
- "Do not trim off the hair on your temples or trim your beards. Leviticus 19-27 (well, it would apply to your husband, not you)

This verse, if taken sola scriptura states that all of the above are valid today:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.… Matthew 5:17
Click to expand...


We should try to understand the Scriptures.

We should understand that there are things in the Old Testament that were meant for Jews (because they were supposed to be a nation of priests).

We should understand that there were some changes made by the coming of the Messiah.
As an example, we are no longer required to sacrifice animals to atone for sins, as they did during the Old Testament. We can even eat food that were then forbidden because they were considered "unclean."

Anyway, we can only try.....after all, no one is perfect.


Matthew 5: 17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them,
but to fulfill them.

18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…



It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.”

Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition.
He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44).
Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10, 13).
In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came to do. On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish His goal, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today.
Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ—and thus remains as a binding legal system for today—then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is a totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled.

Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it.

What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.
Click to expand...
https://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html




John 19:30
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished."
With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.


John 17
4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
Same way all other tradition was passed on. Word of mouth, written language for those who had one, etc... Perhaps through the offspring and wives of the apostles.

Supposedly St. Paul wrote the first Christian letters in mid first century AD. Which, IIRC, wouldn't have been too long after Jesus' ascension.
Click to expand...

So why don't we still have that same tradition today? Why is it just the Bible now?
 
WCH said:
What would he done otherwise...strike them down? If they did leave, how many returned?
Click to expand...

They left because they took Him literally. If He wasn't being literal, wouldn't He have told them that instead of letting them leave over a misunderstanding?
 
phattonez said:
What authority did the early Christians rely on if there was no Bible?
Click to expand...


The New Testament prophets, who "filled the gap" by proclaiming God's message to the people.
By passing on the teachings of Christ, of course the people get the Biblical message.

Christ's teachings also gave the Old Testament as reference - therefore, the people had a dose of the Old Testament through the teachings of Christ.
 
tosca1 said:
The New Testament prophets, who "filled the gap" by proclaiming God's message to the people.
By passing on the teachings of Christ, of course the people get the Biblical message.

Christ's teachings also gave the Old Testament as reference - therefore, the people had a dose of the Old Testament through the teachings of Christ.
Click to expand...

So how did we know to accept the 4 Gospels, but to reject works like the Protoevangelium of James?
 
phattonez said:
Evidence? Because all of the early writings show quite clearly that they believed in the Real Presence.
Click to expand...



John 6
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[g] has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”


53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”




Did any of the Apostles even tried to take a bite out of Jesus? Did anyone of His apostles question Him about this? Please answer.
 
phattonez said:
Which means that your interpretation is incorrect, because in Philemon 10, St. Paul calls himself a father.
Click to expand...


Corrections. He didn't call himself father.


Philemon 10
10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, 11 who once was unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me.
 
phattonez said:
So whom did He tell which books to include in the Bible?
Click to expand...


This recognition of God's Word is usually called "canonization." We are careful to say that God determined the canon, and the church discovered the canon. The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception--it "stands firm in the heavens" (Psalm 119:89)--and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it.

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction?
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?



The apostles were promised the Spirit of truth who would bring to their remembrance what Christ had said (John 14:26) and guide them into "all truth" (John 16:13). After the ascension of Christ, the apostles received supernatural gifts to enable their work and confirm their message (Acts 2:4). God's household is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20). Given the apostles' special commission, it only makes sense that the church made apostolicity the number-one test of canonicity. Thus, the Gospel of Matthew was considered canonical (it was written by an apostle); and the Gospel of Mark, with its close association with the Apostle Peter, was also accepted.

When the New Testament was being written, the individual books and letters were immediately accepted as God's Word and circulated for the benefits of others. The church of Thessalonica received Paul's word as the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Paul's epistles were circulating among the churches even during apostolic times (Colossians 4:16). Peter recognized Paul's writings as inspired by God and equated them with "the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul quoted the Gospel of Luke and called it "Scripture" (1 Timothy 5:18). This widespread acceptance stands in stark contrast to the few debated books, eventually rejected as non-canonical, that enjoyed a limited favor for a time.


Later, as heresy increased and some within the church began clamoring for the acceptance of spurious religious writings, the church wisely held a council to officially confirm their acceptance of the 27 New Testament books. The criteria they used allowed them to objectively distinguish what God had given them from that of human origin. They concluded that they would stay with the books that were universally accepted. In so doing, they determined to continue in "the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42).
Click to expand...
https://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html
 
phattonez said:
And he sends out people to act on His behalf.
Click to expand...
so those people say.....some manage to get wealthy without ever leaving home. I don't like TV preachers, especially the rich ones....
 
tosca1 said:
We should understand that there are things in the Old Testament that were meant for Jews (because they were supposed to be a nation of priests).

We should understand that there were some changes made by the coming of the Messiah.
his spirit.[/B][/COLOR]
Click to expand...
And that 'understanding' cannot be obtained by a sola scriptura study of the Bible. Even ordinary questions such as the permissibility of divorce require human interpretation.
tosca1 said:
John 19:30
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished."
With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.


John 17
4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.
Click to expand...
The verses you cited could imply that some parts of the Old Testament law have been superseded. But what portions of the law have been superseded? Have the 10 commandments ( also part of the Law) been superseded? What about Old Testament Laws concerning capital punishment? Or, does the crucifiction only superseded individual laws that we no longer find convenient?

There do not appear to be sola scriptura answers to these questions.
 
phattonez said:
So how did we know to accept the 4 Gospels, but to reject works like the Protoevangelium of James?
Click to expand...


While all 66 books found in Protestant Bibles are also found in the Catholic Bible, the Catholic Bible also contains other books, and additions to books. The Catholic Bible contains a total of 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament (Protestant Bibles have 39) and 27 in the New Testament (the same as Protestant Bibles).

The additional books in the Catholic Bible are known as the deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. They are Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The Catholic Bible also includes additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Should the Apocrypha be included in the Bible? There was significant debate in the early Christian church, with a majority of the early church fathers rejecting the idea that the Apocrypha belonged in the Bible.

However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The Latin Vulgate became the dominant and officially sanctioned Catholic Bible, and remained that way for around 1200 years. Thus, the Apocrypha became a part of the Catholic Bible.


The Apocrypha was not formally/officially made a part of the Catholic Bible, though, until the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant Reformation. The early Protestant Reformers, in agreement with Judaism, determined that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible, and therefore removed the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles.
Click to expand...
https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Bible.html




The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture.
The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books.
Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals. Here are a few websites that demonstrate these errors:


The apocrypha contradicts Scripture
What About the Apocrypha
Not Found - Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, John Ankerberg Show


The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate.
While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation.

The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct.
However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
Click to expand...
https://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
I don't really see a thread on this issue, but seeing as how this is an important distinction between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox, it's a debate that's worth having here.

So, why do you support sola scriptura when:
1) The Bible nowhere actually says that you should go by scripture alone?
2) Christians for at least a few decades had no Bible, while for a few hundred years there was no settled canon?
3) There is no way to use the Bible to prove what books belong in the Bible?
4) The Bible explicitly teaches that you are to use tradition to guide you?
Click to expand...

I have always thought that sola scriptura took a daringly optomistic view of people's intellectual capabilities and time available to study codex and scriptures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom