PDA

View Full Version : Sola Scriptura?



mouse
Sep 28th 2008, 09:35 PM
Hi everyone,

Can someone tell me about sola scriptura? I'd like to know what the justification/ reasoning for it is... I'd like to know so I could explain it someone if they asked.
Please, no personal opinions... I'm looking for the 'official' view (if such a thing exists).

Thanks,
Amanda.

BroRog
Sep 28th 2008, 09:57 PM
I believe the idea of "Sola Scriptura" has it's basis in the Protestant Reformation, specifically in the ideas of Martin Luther who was quoted as saying, "Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason ... I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience." In this, Martin Luther made an appeal to the scriptures and at the same time, refused to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as being on a par with the scriptures.

The abuses of the Catholic Church was the primary motivation for Luther's questioning the idea of a Roman Catholic authoritarian based view of the Gospel. Having opened up this can of worms (no pun intended), his only recourse was to argue from the scriptures alone to make his case against the Magisterium. (Traditional Church Doctrines) To argue from the Magisterium would be to grant it authority, which would defeat his argument that the Magisterium was corrupted by evil hearted men not under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He had to raise the scriptures to a higher level of authority in order to allow the scriptures to give commentary on the false teachings of the Church.

Ultimately, Luther's appeal to the scriptures as the sole basis for doctrine opened the door for other protesters to abandon the Magisterium altogether, which required them to read and study the scriptures on their own. As a rule, the Catholic church did not allow the laity access to the Bible, rationalizing that the laity were ill equipped to read and understand them on their own. While this may have been true during the Middle Ages, in large part due to the widespread lack of education, the people were eager to learn and wanted to know the truth for themselves.

Today, unless a believer lives in a poor agrarian village, he or she has no excuse for not owning a Bible and learning how to read it.

Ethnikos
Sep 28th 2008, 10:03 PM
Please, no personal opinions... I'm looking for the 'official' view (if such a thing exists).

It means that the scripture itself is a higher authority that an interpretation of that scripture by someone claiming to be an authority.

SIG
Sep 28th 2008, 10:41 PM
"Mathison (2003) explains the doctrine of sola Scriptura in his book asserting that there are four major tenants of sola scriptura:

It is the sole source of revelation. This means that the scriptures are perfect and complete, inerrant and infallible, and sufficient as our sole source of revelation.
It is the sole infallible authority and norm. The Scriptures are inspired and are the very words of God, and therefore they are without error (inerrant) and incapable of being in error (infallible). They are also authoritative, meaning that they are binding on us as the Word of God.
It is interpreted in and by the Church. The Scripture is truth, but the church is the custodian and pillar of truth. Because the church is the body of Christ, and is a spiritual entity, the church has the authority to interpret correctly the spiritual word of God. The church is given authority by Christ to teach and preach the Scriptures, and has authority to set normative doctrinal boundaries for the Scriptures and its members.
It is interpreted in the context of the regula fidei, or the rule of faith. The regula fidei is a summary of the apostolic doctrines and provides the hermeneutical context for the Church to interpret Scripture. This tradition is incorporated in the creeds and confessions of the Church, which serve as a written summary of what the Church believes the Scriptures to say."
---Wikipedia

th1bill
Sep 28th 2008, 11:03 PM
The position I am defending certainly is what is taught in the Bible itself. For example, Deuteronomy 31:9 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Deuteronomy+31%3A9) states: “Moses wrote down this law. . . .” Moses instructed the people by writing down the law and then ordering that it be read to them “so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law,” Deuteronomy 31:9, 12 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Deuteronomy+31%3A9).
Moses declared to all Israel: “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,” Deuteronomy 32:46, 47 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Deuteronomy+32%3A46).
Notice the clear elements in these passages:


The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
In this Word they can find life.

The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word. The priests, prophets, and scribes of Israel certainly function to help the people ministerially. But the Word alone was sufficient for salvation. The prophets, who were indeed inspired, came very much in the spirit of Micah who said, “He has shown you, O man, what is good,” Micah 6:8. The function of the prophets and priests was not to add to or even clarify the law; rather, they applied it to the people who were sinfully indifferent. (Copied from http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html)
Please visit the web site for the complete article with scripture.

TrustGzus
Sep 29th 2008, 12:19 AM
How about a paragraph from Protestant philosopher and theologian, Dr. Norman Geisler . . .
By sola Scriptura orthodox Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). It is important to repeat that Catholics often misunderstand the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura to exclude any truth outside the Bible. This, of course, is untrue, as is revealed by Luther’s famous quote about being “convinced by the testimonies of Scripture or evident reason” (emphasis added). Most Protestants accept the general revelation declared in the heavens (Ps. 19:1) and inscribed on the human heart (Rom. 2:12–15). However, classical Protestantism denies any salvific value of natural (general) revelation, believing one can only come to salvation through special revelation. What Protestants mean by sola Scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals. Natural revelation as such is not a written revelation, nor does it cover all matters of faith and morals (it only overlaps with some). Good reason can and should be used apologetically (to defend against attacks on orthodoxy from without), polemically (to defend against attacks on orthodoxy from within), and theologically (to define orthodox doctrines within).

Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (178). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

crossnote
Sep 29th 2008, 05:02 AM
Hi everyone,

Can someone tell me about sola scriptura? I'd like to know what the justification/ reasoning for it is... I'd like to know so I could explain it someone if they asked.
Please, no personal opinions... I'm looking for the 'official' view (if such a thing exists).

Thanks,
Amanda.

Amanda,

Embedded in your own post is your answer.

"Please, no personal opinions".

When it comes to the knowledge of God, without the revelation of Scripture we are reduced to our 'personal opinions'.

mouse
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:43 AM
Thanks for your replies everyone, I appreciate it. I'm a little disappointed that there is no sound theological reasons provided, but I'll pursue those links you guys provided. Cheers!

Firstfruits
Oct 2nd 2008, 10:45 AM
Thanks for your replies everyone, I appreciate it. I'm a little disappointed that there is no sound theological reasons provided, but I'll pursue those links you guys provided. Cheers!

May be this is what you are looking for.

1 Cor 4:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

God bless you.

Firstfruits

TrustGzus
Oct 3rd 2008, 02:59 AM
Thanks for your replies everyone, I appreciate it. I'm a little disappointed that there is no sound theological reasons provided, but I'll pursue those links you guys provided. Cheers!Hey Mouse,

Something for you to chew on . . . defenders of sola Scriptura don't need to provide reasoning for it. People who would like to throw other authorities into the mix need to provide the reasoning.

Let me explain further. Claiming that anything has divine authority is a radical claim. If an atheist asks the Christian to provide proof that the Bible is the Word of God, that is a fair question. With all the religious books that are out there claiming to speak for God, this is a reasonable question. We are in the position of needing to justify our claim.

Move on to the present discussion. Sola Scriptura is a subject debated with Roman Catholics. Protestants and Roman Catholics are in agreement that the Bible is the Word of God. However, the Roman Catholics want to add more sources with the divine stamp of authority. The burden of proof is upon them. Why should the burden of proof be on Protestants to prove that things do not have divine authority?

We don't go around assuming every thing has divine authority until proven otherwise. I don't go into Barnes & Noble sweating and picking up every book trying to prove it is not the Word of God. If someone wants to tell me Baseball for Dummies is the Word of God, it isn't up to me to prove sola Scriptura to them and that Baseball for Dummies is not the Word of God. It is up to them to prove that Baseball for Dummies is the Word of God.

Same with Roman Catholicism. They agree that the Bible is the Word of God. Yet they want to add to more to it. They are welcome to make any claim they want. The burden is on them, not on us.

Jude
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:11 AM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/450shorttrips19_a.jpg


What is Sola Scriptura? Its a thread that will go on and on and on until its put to bed some 50 pages later.


Jude



http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

Beukeboom
Oct 4th 2008, 05:55 AM
Thanks for your replies everyone, I appreciate it. I'm a little disappointed that there is no sound theological reasons provided, but I'll pursue those links you guys provided. Cheers!

If you wouldn't mind, here is a link to a collection of articles and materials on the topic of sola scriptura:

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Sola%20Scriptura/

OldChurchGuy
Oct 5th 2008, 12:10 AM
Hi everyone,

Can someone tell me about sola scriptura? I'd like to know what the justification/ reasoning for it is... I'd like to know so I could explain it someone if they asked.
Please, no personal opinions... I'm looking for the 'official' view (if such a thing exists).

Thanks,
Amanda.

Here are a couple of links to consider. It appears to be a Protestant concept which makes sense as the followers of Marting Luther worked on finding ways to distance themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the Protestant Bible differs from the Roman Catholic Bible in the number of books each contains.

Enjoy,

OldChurchGuy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_Scriptura

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/practicl.htm

crossnote
Oct 5th 2008, 04:59 AM
It is not the repudiation of Tradition or the teachings of the historical Church but rather when Scripture butts heads with human tradition found in the Church, Scripture has the last word. Sadly today Sola Scriptura is a weapon used against any tradition even if it is true.

Jude
Oct 5th 2008, 05:11 AM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/thlovagls.gif

Maybe now this won't get road into the ground now.

Jude


http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

livingword26
Oct 5th 2008, 05:35 AM
Sadly today Sola Scriptura is a weapon used against any tradition even if it is true.

How can scripture be used against a tradition if it agrees with it?

mouse
Oct 10th 2008, 08:41 AM
I appreciate the replies. However, I am a little sad my ask for the theological reasoning behind Sola Scriptura degenerated into personal and emotional arguments, and anti-Catholocism (it's an incorrect assumption that I'm asking about this because I'm talking with Catholics; it has NOTHING to do with Catholics!!). That burden of proof message was beyond laughable, as Protestants are the ones who removed the Church as an authority, not the Catholics who "added more sources" (Catholic Church is older than Protestantism). Even I admit that. Oh and to pre-empt any accusations, NO, I'm not trying to defend Catholocism, I am simply correcting TrustGzus on historical chronology. I appreciate and thank people for answering, especially those who posted links and actually answered me thoughtfully, without making assumptions about my reasons for asking.
I have had my question answered, so I am satisfied to leave it at that.

David Taylor
Oct 10th 2008, 02:10 PM
Protestants are the ones who removed the Church as an authority, not the Catholics who "added more sources" (Catholic Church is older than Protestantism)

Untrue on two accounts my friend.

1) "The Church" has never been solely the RCC. It has always been true faithful believers from every tongue, tribe, and nation....many of which throughout every century; were never apart of the RCC. "The Church" has always been in authority on the Earth as Christ established it. The premise that the RCC was at one time the only true church is false to begin with.

2) The Catholic Church isn't older that Protestantism either; because there have always been faithful believers outside of the RCC church who have protested against its teachings and traditions; from the very beginning.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 10th 2008, 03:26 PM
Untrue on two accounts my friend.

1) "The Church" has never been solely the RCC. It has always been true faithful believers from every tongue, tribe, and nation....many of which throughout every century; were never apart of the RCC. "The Church" has always been in authority on the Earth as Christ established it. The premise that the RCC was at one time the only true church is false to begin with.

2) The Catholic Church isn't older that Protestantism either; because there have always been faithful believers outside of the RCC church who have protested against its teachings and traditions; from the very beginning.In addition to these excellent points, I would also add that, even if one traces the Catholic Church all the way back to Constantine declaring Christianity the official "religion" of the Roman Empire, you've still got almost three centuries of history prior to that where there was no church-government union. That is the true, pristine Church that was established by Jesus and the apostles.

mouse
Oct 10th 2008, 08:58 PM
David, your history is quite poor. However, what can I say in response to you? Early Church history is something I have done extensively as part of my honours degree in Ancient History, particularly that of the East. I know this subject very well, but I can't correct you because your argument is not based on history, it's based off feelings. Any debate with you would be fruitless, especially since you and some of the other posters here are so bent on finding some way to get snarky at Catholics, and original question had nothing to do with Catholics!!

I came here asking a genuine question and everyone starts lampooning me. Perhaps I should never have asked, it seems asking about your own faith is not something some people like to discuss. Now, if you don't mind, let's drop it and move on. Thank you.

David Taylor
Oct 10th 2008, 09:59 PM
David, your history is quite poor. However, what can I say in response to you? Early Church history is something I have done extensively as part of my honours degree in Ancient History, particularly that of the East.

Then with your advanced degree, you should know better that to make a statement like this on a Protestant Discussion Forum: "Protestants are the ones who removed the Church as an authority, not the Catholics who "added more sources" (Catholic Church is older than Protestantism)

Those were your words, not anyone elses. Right?



I know this subject very well, but I can't correct you because your argument is not based on history, it's based off feelings.

Great assumption. When did we discuss feelings or scholarship? Since I've only posted once on this thread, I kinda missed what you based your assumption on.



Any debate with you would be fruitless, especially since you and some of the other posters here are so bent on finding some way to get snarky at Catholics, and original question had nothing to do with Catholics!!

So when you said, "Protestants are the ones who removed the Church as an authority, not the Catholics who "added more sources" (Catholic Church is older than Protestantism)" you really didn't mean to say 'Catholics'?




I came here asking a genuine question and everyone starts lampooning me. Perhaps I should never have asked, it seems asking about your own faith is not something some people like to discuss. Now, if you don't mind, let's drop it and move on. Thank you.

Who has lampooned you?
How is participating in the discussion lampooning; and how is disagreeing with some of your statements lampooning?

I have made one reply in this thread, to one specific statement you made that I believe to be untrue on 2 accounts. How is that 'lampooning' or 'getting snarky'?

When you make grandious generalizations on a Protestant Discussion forum like: "Protestants are the ones who removed the Church as an authority, not the Catholics who "added more sources" (Catholic Church is older than Protestantism)"
you can't seriously expect the Protstant members to say, "Yep, you're right on with that one! Thanks for making that point clear!"

RoadWarrior
Oct 10th 2008, 10:03 PM
Hi everyone,

Can someone tell me about sola scriptura? I'd like to know what the justification/ reasoning for it is... I'd like to know so I could explain it someone if they asked.
Please, no personal opinions... I'm looking for the 'official' view (if such a thing exists).

Thanks,
Amanda.


David, your history is quite poor. However, what can I say in response to you? Early Church history is something I have done extensively as part of my honours degree in Ancient History, particularly that of the East. I know this subject very well, but I can't correct you because your argument is not based on history, it's based off feelings. Any debate with you would be fruitless, especially since you and some of the other posters here are so bent on finding some way to get snarky at Catholics, and original question had nothing to do with Catholics!!

I came here asking a genuine question and everyone starts lampooning me. Perhaps I should never have asked, it seems asking about your own faith is not something some people like to discuss. Now, if you don't mind, let's drop it and move on. Thank you.

Hi Amanda,

Sorry if you didn't get the answer to your question that you were seeking. We can try again, if you like.

I'm curious about something. If you know the history very well, how is it that you do not know the origin of Sola Scriptura?

Also, I'd encourage you not to get offended if people jump onto their favorite soapbox with every subject that comes up. Some questions have been around the circle so many times that knee-jerk reactions happen, regardless of who posed the current question.

As you see, there were quickly several links provided for you, so it's not a new question.

Bible Chat forum can get a bit rough. Some of the other forums are less contentious.

mouse
Oct 12th 2008, 02:51 AM
Then with your advanced degree, you should know better that to make a statement like this on a Protestant Discussion Forum: "Protestants are the ones who removed the Church as an authority, not the Catholics who "added more sources" (Catholic Church is older than Protestantism)

Those were your words, not anyone elses. Right?

Why should I know better? I don't recall the post I said said you were right, which would warrant 'my knowing better'.

Anyway, to put this whole thing bluntly, there's no point arguing you, because:


2) The Catholic Church isn't older that Protestantism either; because there have always been faithful believers outside of the RCC church who have protested against its teachings and traditions; from the very beginning.

There has to be a Church for people to be protesting against. You wrote "Protestantism", as in the organised movement (if you are referring to an arbitrary concept, it would not be capitalised. And there was no such thing as "Protestantism" 'from the very beginning'; Pelaganism, Arianism, Monophysites, etc., none were comparable with Protestantism because they did not accept sola scriptura). That is why I said it would be fruitless to argue with you, you contradicted yourself.

As for lampooning and getting snarky, as you yourself admitted to not reading the entire thread. Just because you have not read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, moreover, you have been getting emotional because you took "everyone" to mean just you, personally.


When you make grandious generalizations... you can't seriously expect the Protstant members to say, "Yep, you're right on with that one! Thanks for making that point clear!"

Not at all, what I expect is for people to calmly correct me on any errors, and in doing so, to make sense when they do it. I especially expect that from what appears to be an otherwise decent, married man with three daughters. What I don't expect is the sarcasm just demonstrated.

RoadWarrior;


I'm curious about something. If you know the history very well, how is it that you do not know the origin of Sola Scriptura?

That is modern history, as I mentioned my studies are in ancient history.

Anyway, as I said I have had my question answered, I would personally like to draw this discussion to an amicable close. One thing I will admit, is I may need to develop thicker skin. And perhaps we might ALL, myself included, work on our manners.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 12th 2008, 03:15 AM
That is modern history, as I mentioned my studies are in ancient history.The name "Sola Scriptura" might be modern, but the concept dates back to no less than the time of Jesus. As you read through the gospels, the number of times that Jesus referred to "Moses and the Prophets" is too many for me to remember them all. And then how about the dozens and dozens of examples throughout the rest of the New Testament where the various writers cited Old Testament Scriptures as the authoritative base from which they derived their own teachings? The only "person" they ever referred to as having true authority in such instances was Jesus himself. But notice that they never even cited each other as being authoritative without the support of the Scriptures in the Bible as they knew it then, which was today's Old Testament.

So the concept of Sola Scriptura has been around for a minimum of 2000 years, even if not by that name.

RoadWarrior
Oct 12th 2008, 03:31 AM
...

RoadWarrior;

That is modern history, as I mentioned my studies are in ancient history.

Anyway, as I said I have had my question answered, I would personally like to draw this discussion to an amicable close. One thing I will admit, is I may need to develop thicker skin. And perhaps we might ALL, myself included, work on our manners.

My deepest apologies if I sounded rude. :blush: Please, no offense intended.

Actually, I have been working very hard at trying to understand that period of history that includes the Reformation. Strange as it might seem, it begins with Augustine, aka St. Augustine of Hippo. Did you do any studies on him? Martin Luther drew heavily on the teachings of Augustine.

I do look forward to reading more of your posts, especially when you share your perspectives on ancient history. I am a stumbling self-taught student of history, having learned to love it late in life!

mouse
Oct 12th 2008, 04:58 AM
Literalist-Luke;

thankyou. You explained yourself clearly and were civil in doing so. That is all I need. I think there was some prior confusion with equating sola scriptura= Protestantism, which caused the problem.

RoadWarrior;

not at all, I didn't take your message as being in any way offensive! I myself apologise if I sounded rude in my reply... I didn't intend to, just wanted to clarify. :) I have indeed looked at Augustine, but only briefly. I've done more study on Athanasius and Arius; two very interesting figures. I wrote an important essay on monasticism of the 4-6th centuries (looking closer at Eastern monasticism) last semester, which is also something I found intriguing. I consulted a fair few early church figures for that; Augustine, Socrates (the church historian, not the more famous Athenian who was executed!), Sozomen, Symeon Stylites, etc. It is a really fascinating subject, and I don't blame you for being interested in it. Actually, I've found learning Latin has taught me just as much about 'back then', as does historical books & journals, because it really allows you to get into the mindset.

deus et pax tecum!

crossnote
Oct 12th 2008, 05:13 AM
How can scripture be used against a tradition if it agrees with it?

Sorry it took me a while to respond (completely overlooked this question).

My original quote was: "Sadly today Sola Scriptura is a weapon used against any tradition even if it is true."

The reason Sola Scriptura sometimes is used against a true Tradtion is not the fault of Scripture or the Tradition but the person who pretty much sees all Tradition as unscriptural, following the old saying of 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'.

RoadWarrior
Oct 12th 2008, 05:19 AM
...
RoadWarrior;

not at all, I didn't take your message as being in any way offensive! I myself apologise if I sounded rude in my reply... I didn't intend to, just wanted to clarify. :) I have indeed looked at Augustine, but only briefly. I've done more study on Athanasius and Arius; two very interesting figures. I wrote an important essay on monasticism of the 4-6th centuries (looking closer at Eastern monasticism) last semester, which is also something I found intriguing. I consulted a fair few early church figures for that; Augustine, Socrates (the church historian, not the more famous Athenian who was executed!), Sozomen, Symeon Stylites, etc. It is a really fascinating subject, and I don't blame you for being interested in it. Actually, I've found learning Latin has taught me just as much about 'back then', as does historical books & journals, because it really allows you to get into the mindset.

deus et pax tecum!

I wish I had studied Latin in high school along with my best friend! :( I don't think I could handle it at this point, more's the pity!

I've been trying to dig through some of my books to see if I can get a better handle on Sola Scriptura, but what I'm looking for is not popping out to me.

Basically, I think the argument is about whether the scripture is the reliable source of spiritual wisdom or whether traditions are of value also.

The more I study history, the more I feel that tradition is a poor source to lean on. All the "great" men, like Augustine, Luther, etc., as well as the ones you named, had their faults. Truly, no matter how brilliant they were, they could only "see through a glass darkly" as Paul stated in Corinthians. So they got some things right, and some things wrong.

Whether Luther was right or wrong about the Sola Scriptura doctrine, this was his reason - he knew for sure that the RCC at that time in history was leaning on things that were very wrong. His efforts were directed toward reforming the RCC, but it didn't work out that way. The leaders in the RCC did not want to be reformed, and sought to kill him instead.

OK, I just looked in one more book! Halley's Bible handbook, re: Martin Luther.

"He lectured in the vernacular (the common spoken language, as opposed to the Latin most used in theological settings), and to do that intelligently he began to study the Bible in the original languages. He concluded that only in the Bible could the truth be found (sola scriptura). In 1516 when reading Romans 1:17, he became convinced that only through faith in Christ could he be justified before God (sola fide)."

Halley's Bible Handbook is one of most useful books on my shelf! If you don't have one yet, look for it in your Bible bookstore.

ravi4u2
Oct 12th 2008, 01:55 PM
May be this is what you are looking for.

1 Cor 4:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

God bless you.

FirstfruitsStrangely when Paul wrote this, there was no Bible as we know it today...

livingword26
Oct 12th 2008, 03:39 PM
Strangely when Paul wrote this, there was no Bible as we know it today...

Yes, most everyone knows that. Are you implying that the new testament in our bibles not to be considered scripture?

ravi4u2
Oct 13th 2008, 01:30 PM
Yes, most everyone knows that. Are you implying that the new testament in our bibles not to be considered scripture?On the contrary, "All inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living".

Br. Barnabas
Oct 13th 2008, 05:18 PM
Yes, most everyone knows that. Are you implying that the new testament in our bibles not to be considered scripture?

I would say that a verse from the New Testament that everyone likes to quote 2 Timothy 3:16 and any other place in the NT that speaks of Scripture is talking only about the writings of Moses and the Prophets. Because at the time of the NT's composition the Writing, of the TaNaK were not considered Scripture and neither was the NT.

Jamina in about 90 AD set up the TaNaK as we now have it. And there was never an ancient counsel that set up the Canon of the NT and declared it "Scripture." We later Christians have said that those books that were written early enough and survived the ages are Scripture. I feel that the Canon should not be and hopefully is not closed. Because if we find another writing of Paul, such as the real First Letter to the Church at Corinth (seeing as what we have is the 2nd since Paul mentions in the letter another letter he wrote them) and the 3rd Letter to the Church at Corinth (as what we have now as 2 Corinthians is the 3rd letter to the church). The same goes for any other letter, Gospel, or book that might we can prove dates back to the time of the Apostles and has Apostlic authorship or Divine Inspiration. Sadly I think that there are some Christians who would not allow another book to be included into their Bible even if it is proved that it meet all the criteria I mentioned above or more. Because at the discover of the DSS many people have not wanted the different readings of the Hebrew texts to be put in their Bibles because it was not what they believed was "divinly perserved." But that is a whole other topic in and of it self.

Now I don't believe that the books of the NT as we have them should not be considered Scripture but what Paul and others say of Scripture in their writtings should not be automaticaly applied to the writings of the NT because for the most part I don't believe that the authors of the NT knew or felt that they were writting Scripture. Because if they had they would have laid out their beliefs and doctrines much better then what they did; and would have most likely set up something like the Creeds to let us know what was orthodox and what was heretical.

livingword26
Oct 13th 2008, 10:47 PM
Now I don't believe that the books of the NT as we have them should not be considered Scripture but what Paul and others say of Scripture in their writtings should not be automaticaly applied to the writings of the NT

I'm sorry, this seems like a contradiction to me. You say that you think the books of the NT should be considered scripture, then you say that what Paul, and "others" say about scripture, should not be applied to the writings of the NT.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 13th 2008, 11:27 PM
I'm sorry, this seems like a contradiction to me. You say that you think the books of the NT should be considered scripture, then you say that what Paul, and "others" say about scripture, should not be applied to the writings of the NT.

Not a contradiction Paul and the others did not think they were writing Scripture the Early church said that it was Scripture and we as Christians have continued that tradition. But the writers themselves, I don't think, would say that they were writing Scripture. When they were writing what they wrote and spoke of Scripture they mean the Torah and the Nevi'im, as those were the canonized writings of the Jews at the time of their writing the books of the NT.

livingword26
Oct 14th 2008, 12:10 AM
Not a contradiction Paul and the others did not think they were writing Scripture the Early church said that it was Scripture and we as Christians have continued that tradition. But the writers themselves, I don't think, would say that they were writing Scripture. When they were writing what they wrote and spoke of Scripture they mean the Torah and the Nevi'im, as those were the canonized writings of the Jews at the time of their writing the books of the NT.

So you think that the following verse only applies to the old testament, and we cannot use any new testament to apply it?

2Ti 3:16
(16) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Br. Barnabas
Oct 14th 2008, 01:17 AM
So you think that the following verse only applies to the old testament, and we cannot use any new testament to apply it?

2Ti 3:16
(16) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What I am saying is yes that verse or at least the "scripture" that Paul is referring to in 2 Tim 3:16 is only the Torah and Nevi'im which means only: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, maybe/most likely Psalms, Proverbs, Ezra, and Nehemiah. As these are the only writings that were considered canonical at the time that Paul wrote his letter to Timothy and these are the books that Paul and the Jews considered to be scripture.

It was not until the counsel at Jamina in about 90 that the Jewish people decided what the Hebrew Bible would have in it. Thus, some of the books in the Kethuvim were disputed books, such as Esther and Daniel.

So in the context of what Paul was writing and in his mind only the books mentioned above were scripture and "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." If you or anyone else wants to say that the NT or the books in the Kethuvim are God-breathed and can have all the other things that Paul talks about in the verse applied to them that is up to you, but it is not what Paul had in mind when he wrote his letter. I believe that all the Bible that we have now is divinely inspired, but I also know and believe that Paul was not talking about the NT or all the books in the Kethuvim.

livingword26
Oct 14th 2008, 02:40 AM
What I am saying is yes that verse or at least the "scripture" that Paul is referring to in 2 Tim 3:16 is only the Torah and Nevi'im which means only: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, maybe/most likely Psalms, Proverbs, Ezra, and Nehemiah. As these are the only writings that were considered canonical at the time that Paul wrote his letter to Timothy and these are the books that Paul and the Jews considered to be scripture.

It was not until the counsel at Jamina in about 90 that the Jewish people decided what the Hebrew Bible would have in it. Thus, some of the books in the Kethuvim were disputed books, such as Esther and Daniel.

So in the context of what Paul was writing and in his mind only the books mentioned above were scripture and "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." If you or anyone else wants to say that the NT or the books in the Kethuvim are God-breathed and can have all the other things that Paul talks about in the verse applied to them that is up to you, but it is not what Paul had in mind when he wrote his letter. I believe that all the Bible that we have now is divinely inspired, but I also know and believe that Paul was not talking about the NT or all the books in the Kethuvim.

As I said in the beginning, I, and most people here, know that when all the people who wrote the new testament, referred to scripture, they were referring to the old testament. It is obvious that the new testament was not written at that time, since they wrote it. I know that Paul was referring to the old testament when he wrote 2Timmothy 3:16. However, if a person believes the new testament to be divinely inspired, and part of the word of God, then I don't see how they cannot include it in a reference to Scripture. If a person believes that God, and not man, is responsible for the canonization of the bible, and He brought to us what He wanted us to have, then it has to be accepted as a whole.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 14th 2008, 08:15 AM
2 Peter 3:15-16 - "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. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Notice that, by using the phrase "other Scriptures", Peter is here endorsing Paul's writings as full-blown Scripture.

OldChurchGuy
Oct 14th 2008, 12:34 PM
As I said in the beginning, I, and most people here, know that when all the people who wrote the new testament, referred to scripture, they were referring to the old testament. It is obvious that the new testament was not written at that time, since they wrote it. I know that Paul was referring to the old testament when he wrote 2Timmothy 3:16. However, if a person believes the new testament to be divinely inspired, and part of the word of God, then I don't see how they cannot include it in a reference to Scripture. If a person believes that God, and not man, is responsible for the canonization of the bible, and He brought to us what He wanted us to have, then it has to be accepted as a whole.

So it is correct to conclude the passage in 2 Timothy 3:16 has a dual meaning? Paul, at the time he was writing it, had no idea the letter would be referring to anything other than what we call the Old Testament. But, after the creation of the New Testament Canon (year 397 or so as I recall) this passage can now interpreted to cover both the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

Br. Barnabas
Oct 14th 2008, 12:47 PM
As I said in the beginning, I, and most people here, know that when all the people who wrote the new testament, referred to scripture, they were referring to the old testament. It is obvious that the new testament was not written at that time, since they wrote it. I know that Paul was referring to the old testament when he wrote 2Timmothy 3:16. However, if a person believes the new testament to be divinely inspired, and part of the word of God, then I don't see how they cannot include it in a reference to Scripture. If a person believes that God, and not man, is responsible for the canonization of the bible, and He brought to us what He wanted us to have, then it has to be accepted as a whole.

As I said before if you or anyone else wants to apply it to the NT or any other work that is fine, BUT Paul was not saying that. You cannot say that Paul said that about the New Testament. You can say that "Paul says this about Scripture and I apply that to the NT also." But bear in mind that Paul was not referring to the NT when he wrote the letter to Timothy. That is all I am saying.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 14th 2008, 12:55 PM
2 Peter 3:15-16 - "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. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Notice that, by using the phrase "other Scriptures", Peter is here endorsing Paul's writings as full-blown Scripture.

I believe your logic is flawed here. Using the phrase other Scriptures does not mean that Peter is calling what Paul wrote Scripture. He is merely pointing out that there are other Scriptures or what people might believe to be Scripture. We don't know exactly what Peter is refering to here or what he means by other Scriptures. He might be refering to things such as 1 Enoch and other books like that, that we know are not Scripture but some people at the time thought should be included in Scripture.

If I compare the modern sci-fi/fantasy writing to classic literature that does not mean that I am saying that modern sci-fi is the same as classic literature and should be considered the same. I believe this is what Peter is doing here. He is making a contrast. You should read Paul's letters but you should not read this other Scriptures. Or that you should read Paul's letters but don't do to it what these people do to these other Scriptures. Because his writings are not Scripture or because neither of these things are Scripture.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 14th 2008, 01:17 PM
So it is correct to conclude the passage in 2 Timothy 3:16 has a dual meaning? Paul, at the time he was writing it, had no idea the letter would be referring to anything other than what we call the Old Testament. But, after the creation of the New Testament Canon (year 397 or so as I recall) this passage can now interpreted to cover both the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

At the time Paul was saying it for only some of the OT because not all of it was decided as of yet. But yes I would say that if one wanted to apply it to the NT they could as long as they understand that it was not the author's intent. That they are doing that and reading more into the text then what the author meant.

St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria wrote a letter that had the books that we consider to be canonical listed in 367 but it was not until the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397 but even then there were still disputed books. Such as James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. Even Martin Luther wanted to exclude James and some of these other books. And even put these books at the every end of the Bible instead of their more traditional places.

As I said before I don't think the canon should be closed, for if we find some thing like the DSS, but with writings from the NT and some letters that we know existed at sometime, but had been lost to time should not these lost books of Paul or other Apostles be able to be included also? My example from above were the two missing letters to the church at Corinth.