Sola Scriptura? Is it actually in the Scriptures?

Oddly enough by making the statement: You have gone beyond what was written.

quote:

---

Rev 20:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

---

That is for the prophecy written in Revelations, not the entire Bible canon.

quote:

---

1 Cor 4:6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written

---

All that was written as far as holy scripture during Paul's time was the Tanakh. Paul isn't talking about not adding or taking away from the written word.Your car analogy doesn't really fit. The manual that comes with a car is not complete anyway. It is only enough information to tell you how to run the car. It doesn't have all the information necessary to fix the car.Adding or deleting from the instruction manual does not automatically make the manual useless. It would only be useless if necessary information was taken away or incorrect information was added. Most people only read the manual to figure out how to use the new gadgets in the car.Plus as the car changes, so does the instruction manual. Cars do not remain the same. People do not remain the same. Manuals do not remain the same. That's why the Jews have the Oral Torah, which was given to them from God through Moses.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 10-20-2005 10:26 AM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

But if you read Jesus words, there most certainly are other sources which are of equal merit.In the Talmudic debate relating to work on the Sabbath, Jesus uses common sense to supersede scripture.This message has been edited by jar, 10-20-2005 09:15 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The readers of 1 Corinthians were holding holy scripture in their hands as they read. Like, it didn't become holy scripture because men later decided it was. It was holy scripture as soon as it was written. So we can include at least 1 Cor in the equation. And whatever other holy letters that got copied and circulated between the churches which led to them being included in the canon

that wasn't common sense: it was a contrast between the reign of Law and the reign of Grace. Which is completely scriptural: under law or under grace.

Let's back up a bit here... While I'll admit that the reference to the law does have a strong connotation with the Scriptures, I would like to note that the word testimony seems to be used elsewhere in the Scriptures for either...1) ...the literal words spoken by God or words from someone else's mouth...or2) ...the Ark of the Testimony itself.In either case, the usage of "testimony" in the Isaiah passage almost certainly is not a singular reference to the Scriptures. In fact, everywhere else in the Scriptures, outside of this chapter in Isaiah, the word testimony is used for either 1) or 2) as noted above -- and yet not once does it indicate that it's a reference to the Scriptures themselves (even in the passage you've quoted I might add).See...take a look for yourself. Bible Search Results in NIVI will also note that the "binding" of the testimony in Isaiah 8:16... ...seems to be using metaphorical language. In other words, there does not appear to be "literal physical things" to bind up.Do you disagree that the "binding of the testimony" in Isaiah 8:16 seems to be using metaphorical language?Or, asked differently, what do you think the passage of Isaiah 8:16 means when it says "bind"?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-20-2005 11:15 AM

A couple thoughts on the OP: First, I don't believe the Scriptures teach the sola Scriptura doctrine. In fact, I think they directly contradict it. 1 Tim 3:15 calls the church, not the Scriptures, the pillar and support of the truth. Rom 8:14 says the sons of God are those who are led by the Spirit (not the Scriptures). 1 Jn 2:27 says an anointing from the Holy One (not the Scriptures) is what will teach the church all things.But that's not mainly what I want to address. What does sola Scriptura or "Only Scripture" mean, as in what does it apply to? You specify "the only source for knowing about God," and that narrows it a little, but usually sola Scriptura covers more than just knowing about God; it also covers knowing what God wants from you.Should I consult the Scriptures for whether I can wear plaid pants and a striped shirt together? What about little league? Do they adress whether my kids can play team sports with other kids? If they do, can they go on to professional sports, too? What about mixed swimming in various states of dress? What about buying SUV's verse compacts? Should I never run my car a/c so that I help save the environment? Plastic or paper bags at the grocery store?My point is that people make decisions every day without the Scriptures, even the most sola Scriptura'd people around. Only the absolutely kooky believe the Scriptures address everything. So at some point, nobody believes in sola Scriptura.Then, even on what the Scriptures do specifically address, followers of Scripture don't agree. How important is baptism, when should it happen, how should it happen, how wet should you get, how long should you wait, etc., and that's one of the "elementary principles" according to the Scripture, and every other subject is the same way. They're all getting this from sola Scriptura, or they're getting this from sola very unreliable guesses, interpretation, biases, and denominational loyalties?I guess I'm saying that sola Scripture seems like a moot issue, anyway, because even if it's supposed to exist, it doesn't, and it never will.

Nonsense. That's rediculous.Jesus says that you should use the brain your given and not check it at the door. He says "If your donkey falls in a ditch on the Sabbath only a damn fool would wait until the next day to haul it out".Jesus says, and this is definitely a message that many Christians miss, "Use your head!" edited to moosify sub-titleThis message has been edited by jar, 10-20-2005 03:02 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Oddly enough by making the statement:

​

The bible warns with great deliberateness against adding and taking away from it.

​

You have gone beyond what was written.

​

quote:Rev 20:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

​

That is for the prophecy written in Revelations, not the entire Bible canon.

​

quote:1 Cor 4:6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written

​

All that was written as far as holy scripture during Paul's time was the Tanakh.

​

Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

​

Paul isn't talking about not adding or taking away from the written word.

​

Your car analogy doesn't really fit. The manual that comes with a car is not complete anyway. It is only enough information to tell you how to run the car. It doesn't have all the information necessary to fix the car.

​

Adding or deleting from the instruction manual does not automatically make the manual useless. It would only be useless if necessary information was taken away or incorrect information was added. Most people only read the manual to figure out how to use the new gadgets in the car.

​

Plus as the car changes, so does the instruction manual. Cars do not remain the same. People do not remain the same. Manuals do not remain the same. That's why the Jews have the Oral Torah, which was given to them from God through Moses.

---

ok

quote:

---

While I'll admit that the reference to the law does have a strong connotation with the Scriptures, I would like to note that the word testimony seems to be used elsewhere in the Scriptures for either...

---

While I'll admit that the reference I provided would NOT be accepted in its simplicity covering the broadest spectrum called scripture, I gave it a go anyways.As for the 'metaphorical language' contained in Is 8:16? One way or the other, it does not address the issue of Sola Scriptura.

No problem.But I would like you to know that if you believe that God inspired the writers of Sacred Scripture as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then I do agree with you I admit that I could be wrong, but I think it does.For example, consider the following:

oops...missed this one.Just marking a place in this thread that I can edit and respond to your post tomorrow. EDIT Sure. ok. But Occam's razor does not support the idea that God only communicates through the Scriptures. Just as he allowed the authors of Scripture to be moved by the Holy Spirit to write the words -- he also allows the readers to be moved by the Holy Spirit when reading the words.In other words, the Spirit is transmitted by the Scriptures. But this doesn't mean that the Scriptures are the only means by which the Holy Spirit can transmit a message. No. Our starting point is the Holy Spirit which enables us to understand these things according to God's will.Furthermore, historical, geological, and living traditions have carried the Spirit's motion since the beginning. But who's moving outside of it for interpetative purposes? Then why are there over 1000 Christian denominations around today, all claiming Sola Scriptura yet often disagreeing with themselves? The problem of over 1000 denominations claiming to use Sola Scriptura yet often disagreeing with themselves? Buh? And making the claim that Bible interprets the Bible isn't a circular argument either?Clearly there are historical and geological materials readilly available for one to validate what the Scriptures have claimed -- so why are they not considered valid either? Sure. I certainly agree with this. No. It must lie within the power of the Holy Spirit to move the reader toward God's will. Sure there is.What happens when we comes across words that we do not understand, but then come across them "in context" from the culture the Scriptures were written in.Why is there such things as Biblical archeologists in the first place?What about the writings of the early fathers that gave us a snapshot of what the church believed in the first four centuries?Furthermore, it should be noted that even though many Christians regard the Scriptures themselves as a 'sign' or 'evidence' of Christ's physical presence here on earth, it should not be underscored as to how much value the early church fathers proved to be for providing this evidence.The earliest manuscripts of the Scriptures that we have are dated from 175 to 250 A.D.However, the early church fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even earlier manuscripts by quoting from all but one of the Christian Scriptures. They are also in the position to authenticate those books, written by the apostles or their close associates, and can distinguish from later books such as the gnostic gospel of Thomas that claimed to have been written by the apostles, but were not. You've got to be joking right?No?How exactly did we get the Scriptures handed down to us in the first place?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-21-2005 02:40 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-23-2005 08:36 AM

Isaiah 8:12-15 is a quote from God. Isaiah 8:16 is not a metaphor (A figure of speech in which a comparison is made between two things essentially unalike.).It is very distinct instructions. Pack up the prophecy he has written and the Torah. He will wait out the disaster that is coming.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

DorfMan writes:

​

As for the 'metaphorical language' contained in Is 8:16? One way or the other, it does not address the issue of Sola Scriptura.

​

I admit that I could be wrong, but I think it does.

​

For example, consider the following:

​

Matthew 16:19 writes:

​

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

---

Then explain it to me away from RCC connotations/applications/meanings.....Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.........who claims to have the orally given authority to teach her doctrines in place of scripture.For the RCC it is always and ever - "the church says" -
Never, ever - "the Bible says" -Those who object to what the churh says finding little or no biblical evidence in her doctrines, list on the side of sola scriptura and all that is necessary for salvation is found within its pages.

You need to remember that using the word "Scripture" to mean the Bible is a revision of what was meant by the word Scripture in the Bible.The Canons were not created until hundreds of years after the fact. When the things that are in the Bible were written there was no Bible, the word Scripture simply refered to all the body of theological writings and the oral tradition.To now try to limit Scripture to the various books included in the different Canons is to change completely what was meant at the time. edited to change sub-titleThis message has been edited by jar, 10-21-2005 12:17 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

You need to remember that using the word "Scripture" to mean the Bible is a revision of what was meant by the word Scripture in the Bible.

​

The Canons were not created until hundreds of years after the fact. When the things that are in the Bible were written there was no Bible, the word Scripture simply refered to all the body of theological writings and the oral tradition.

​

To now try to limit Scripture to the various books included in the different Canons is to change completely what was meant at the time.

---

Thanks for the admonition.
Christ said 'it is written'. Christ never said 'it is oralled'.
'Created canons' is a great call and description of what they are, for created they were. Since not a single one of them has a scriptural foundation, they are the vain traditions of men.Perhaps you have read this essay. The site has links to some interesting deliberations.http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm