Sola Scriptura?

Question

quick response to some that dont allow email:
all that came out of Jesus's mouth is scripture??? so if Jesus ever said ouch I stubbed my toe that to you is scripture - remember he is in a human body He might have done that- sounds silly to me

sola scriptura is not any where in the Bible - neither is the Trinity but I'm sure you believe in that
Traditions that Paul spoke of - tradition is fine as long as it does not contradict scripture....
Paul refering to outside source to explain to nonbelievers does not make his reference scripture, important and relevant maybe but not on the same level as scripture

Answer 1

I haven't heard that anything that came out of Jesus' mouth is Scripture, though it would be fit to put into Scripture, obviously.
As silly example though it may be, even something like, "Ouch, I stubbed my toe", would have lots of meaning. For example, it would further strengthen the fact that, though Jesus is 100% God, when He was on earth He was at the SAME TIME 100% man. Since mankind is susceptible to pain, some statement like that would only further show that He was not only 100% God but also 100% man. The God-man, one might say.

Terms like "Sola Scriptura", and the "Trinity" are not found in the Bible, that is true. They have been coined. However, they are not contrary to Scripture, and the idea that both represent are strongly shown throughout the Bible. However, "Sola Scriptura" is a term that needs to be handled carefully; it does not mean that I won't read any history book but the Bible alone, for example. Rather, if, for example, there was a doctrinal issue and the Bible was the only reference that held an idea contrary to the others, then "Sola Scriptura".

If Paul talks about traditions, that's fine. He also said:

Colossians 2:8 NIV
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

If the tradition is contrary to Scripture, then disregard it. Also, even when referencing a foreign source, Paul, or any other writer, is not calling that entire source Scripture, or anything close to it. However, that source might have, like the quote in Jude, a gem of truth in it that. If the quote is in Scripture, then the quote is Scripture. That does not mean the source of the quote is scripture. I can quote an atheist, for example, because that atheist might have said something true. Quoting him, however, does not mean that I am endorsing his philosophy. God bless!

Answer 2

First of all, Paul could not say anything about the principle of sola scriptura as there was no set canon for four centuries after his death, and if you want to get real technical, not finalized until the Council of Trent. God did not deliver a bound volume stamped with his impimatur, so conferring upon the Bible, in whatever version, the status of an infallible oracle of God is nothing but a reflection of the idolatry of the canon which Luther began. Revelation, if it exists at all, is a spiritual phenomenon and a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, and not subject to closure by the vote of a council of politicians. Moreover the principle contradicts Christ's conveyance of authority on his direct disciples and their conveyance of this same authority to their disciples and so forth, which is why the Catholic Church places the Magisterium on par with scripture. But the claim that scripture is infallible or that the pope is infallible is provably nonsense. We may say the scripture is authoritative as regards the faith, but that is a doctrinal position and nothing more.

Answer 3

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Answer 4

Sola Scriptura doesn't make since. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only authority. As a matter of fact is says that the Church has the divine authority to govern (Matt. 16:13-20 and Luke 10:16). The Bible also tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (Tim. 3:15). Finally, the Bible clearly states that not everything is recorded in the Bible (John 21:25) So how can the Bible be the only authority when it clearly says that it isn't?

God bless,
Stanbo

Answer 5

"neither is the Trinity but I'm sure you believe in that"

Matthew 28:19-20

The words of Jesus:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I comanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

If sola scriptura is not in the bible, then the "oh i stepped on my toe" would also not be in it.

Sola scriptura is a latin term made by men.

And it doesn't mean literally Scripture Alone, it means that we abide by what the Bible says, and nothing else (the Bible says obey God, and Jesus' teachings)



NASB

Answer 6

unquestionably an limitless majority of Christians don't have faith in Sola Scriptura. Catholics, eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists all have faith in interpretation of scripture. As for Christmas and Easter, no Pope desperate while to have fun those holiday journeys. the trendy custom of Christmas and Easter starts off in the 4th Century in the midst of Christian persecution. The Pope became only the Bishop of Rome at that factor and did no longer wield any specific authority right now. the holiday journeys have been given their dates to verify with pagan holiday journeys to dodge suspicion and persecution. in case you probably did no longer have fun on pagan holiday journeys and helf feasts on non pagan holiday journeys you have been we no longer being area of the community, thes have been persecuted for being a Christian. It had no longer something to do with the Pope. The Pope had no authority on the time. until the 11th century, wherein their became a Pope, the Greeks celebrated easter on a diverse day than the Latin Church, the Pope did no longer care. His place of work did no longer create or standardize holiday journeys. while the Greeks rejected the Papacy, they stored their origional equipment for identifying while Easter became to be held which continues for use to at present. The baptists and evangelicals inherited ecu lifestyle which states that Christmas is on the twenty 5th of December, so thats while they have fun it. I could admit, Im undecided why they stored the Catholic approach of identifying Easter, yet is in all likelihood an identical reason, they're area of western lifestyle. .

Answer 7

Not every word from Jesus is scripture or was in "the law".

John 13:34
I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. 35 By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”

Answer 8

Adding to scripture is not just a Catholic tradition:

The Quo Vadis story is one of those Legends of the Saints that are well-known to Catholics but practically unknown to Protestants. It is an ancient legend concerning Peter's martyrdom, believed to be from the second century, and preserved in the collection of legends included in the apocryphal Acts of Peter. George Edmundson in The Church in Rome in the First Century (London, 1913) summarizes the legend thus:

His friends, so runs the story, had entreated the Apostle to save his life by leaving the city. Peter at last consented, but on condition that he should go away alone. But when he wished to pass the gate of the city, he saw Christ meeting him. Falling down in adoration he says to Him 'Lord, whither goest Thou?' [Latin, quo vadis?] And Christ replied to him 'I am coming to Rome to be again crucified.' And Peter says to Him 'Lord, wilt Thou again be crucified?' And the Lord said to him 'Even so, I will again be crucified.' Peter said to Him 'Lord, I will return and will follow Thee.' And with these words the Lord ascended into Heaven . . . And Peter, afterwards corning to himself, understood that it was of his own passion that it had been spoken, because that in it the Lord would suffer. The Apostle then returned with joy to meet the death which the Lord had signified that he should die.

Regarding the authenticity of the story Edmundson says, "That it contains a story that is authentic in the sense of being based on events that really occurred is not improbable. The Peter described here is the Peter of the Gospels." Likewise J.B. Lightfoot in his Ordination Addresses and Counsel to Clergy (London, 1890) defended the authenticity of the story: "Why should we not believe it true? ... because it is so subtly true to character and because it is so eminently profound in its significance, we are led to assign to this tradition a weight which the external testimony in its favor would hardly warrant."

In this same manner the authenticity of the Story of the Adulteress has been maintained by some churchmen. Before its insertion into copies of the Gospel of John during the fourth century, this very popular story must have been transmitted in the same way that the Quo Vadis legend was transmitted, and there is nothing which can be said on its behalf which cannot also be said on behalf of the Quo Vadis legend. Yet because it obtained a place in medieval copies of John's Gospel, the Story of the Adulteress eventually attained to the status of Holy Scripture.

John Calvin, a great champion of the sola scriptura principle at the time of the Protestant Reformation, made the following remarks on the Story of the Adulteress in his commentary on John's Gospel:

It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage.

Along the same line is the argument of a recent commentator, William Hendriksen. In his Exposition of the Gospel According to John (1953) he writes:

The story fits well into the present context ... Christ as pictured here (7:53-8:11) is entirely in character ... though it cannot now be proven that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel ... we believe ... that what is here recorded really took place, and contains nothing that is in conflict with the apostolic spirit. Hence instead of removing this section from the Bible it should be retained and used for our benefit. Ministers should not be afraid to base sermons on it!

In this way we go on, preaching as Scripture a passage which has no right to be presented as such, in the full knowledge of the fact that the story is absent from the early manuscripts. This is said to be "for our benefit." Yet the benefits of this passage are very doubtful.

The Story of the Adulteress is one of the most abused passages in all of Scripture. The climactic saying of the passage, "let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone," is the favorite text of those who refuse to repent of their sins and who will not hear a word of correction from Christian brothers. Such an attitude is actually encouraged by preachers who liken sharp criticism of sin to the stones of the Pharisees. What else can a preacher make of this passage in a day such as ours, after all stonings and all meaningful church discipline have ceased? Indeed, stonings had ceased even in the first century, when the right of the Jews to inflict capital punishment was taken away from them by the Roman authorities. It is useless to point out that "Go and sin no more" is tacked onto the end of the story after the impressive and dramatic climax of the story has done its work. This apocryphal story is the central text of our debased "pop Christianity" with its easy-believism and its cheap grace, and it is quite possible that it was added to Scripture in the fourth century with the very same thing in view -- the discouragement of all meaningful church discipline.

It takes two or three witnesses to establish truth. [scripture / scripture]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/quovadis.html

Answer 9

Why would anyone listen to a sick and twisted person like Martin Luther?