A new "Scripture Alone" definition

[De Maria]

I've only seen this definition once:

Scripture is sufficient for doctrine.

When I first saw this definition in the CARM website, I wondered what had become of the word "alone" in the definition. Does this definition mean that the word "alone" is assumed to follow Scripture?

Or have the writers of this definition given up on the idea that Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine?

After all, this new definition doesn't exclude anything. It states that Scripture is sufficient for doctrine, but does not exclude that Tradition may be sufficient for doctrine or that the Church may be sufficient for doctrine. So what does this new definition mean? It certainly seems to be at odds with the traditional Scripture alone definition.

Traditional Scripture alone definition? Is that a contradiction in terms? :wink:

[The Other Guy]

I've only seen this definition once:

Scripture is sufficient for doctrine.

When I first saw this definition in the CARM website, I wondered what had become of the word "alone" in the definition. Does this definition mean that the word "alone" is assumed to follow Scripture?

Or have the writers of this definition given up on the idea that Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine?

After all, this new definition doesn't exclude anything. It states that Scripture is sufficient for doctrine, but does not exclude that Tradition may be sufficient for doctrine or that the Church may be sufficient for doctrine. So what does this new definition mean? It certainly seems to be at odds with the traditional Scripture alone definition.

Traditional Scripture alone definition? Is that a contradiction in terms? :wink:

Dictionary.com defines 'sufficient' as: 'being as much as is needed.' Substitute the definition for the word 'sufficient' and it reads: Scripture is as much as is needed for doctrine. Adding 'alone' to that sentence is unnecessary, because it's implied in the definition of 'sufficient'. It could be added for extra clarity or force, but leaving it out does no damage to the sola scriptura doctrine.

Actually, if you follow the definition of 'sufficient' given above, it does rule out other authorities, because no other authority is needed if Scripture is all that is needed. If you were talking about scriptural authority, 'alone' would need to be added to articulate sola scriptura properly. For example, 'Scripture is the authority on doctrine' vs. 'Scripture alone is the authority on doctrine.' The first statement is most naturally interpreted as saying the same thing as the second, but it is not as explicit, and doesn't necessarily rule out other authorities. However, when stating that Scripture is sufficient, the immediate implication is that nothing else is needed. I think we sometimes get carried away with the word 'alone' in Protestant circles to the point where we forget it's actually implied in some technical docrinal terms we use. 'Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine' really is just a redundant statement. So I guess 'sufficient' is a sufficient term for describing the sufficiency of Scripture. :wink:

[De Maria]

First of all, I'd like to note that you are using a nonbiblical source to get a better understanding of your nonbiblical doctrine.

Dictionary.com defines 'sufficient' as: 'being as much as is needed.' Substitute the definition for the word 'sufficient' and it reads: Scripture is as much as is needed for doctrine. [Adding 'alone' to that sentence is unnecessary, because it's implied in the definition of 'sufficient'.

"As much as is needed" is not the same thing as the "only thing needed".

Many things can be "as much as is needed." Good parenting, good preaching, patience (as it says elsewhere in Scripture). Therefore, Scripture alone is not implied in this statement.

It could be added for extra clarity or force, but leaving it out does no damage to the sola scriptura doctrine.

The fact is, that leaving "alone" out of this definition changes the entire doctrine of Sola Scriptura as it has been historically understood.

{quote]Actually, if you follow the definition of 'sufficient' given above, it does rule out other authorities, because no other authority is needed if Scripture is all that is needed.

Sorry, for the same reason as noted above, this definition falls way short of defining Sola Scriptura.

If you were talking about scriptural authority, 'alone' would need to be added to articulate sola scriptura properly. For example, 'Scripture is the authority on doctrine' vs. 'Scripture alone is the authority on doctrine.' The first statement is most naturally interpreted as saying the same thing as the second, but it is not as explicit, and doesn't necessarily rule out other authorities. However, when stating that Scripture is sufficient, the immediate implication is that nothing else is needed.

False. No such implication exists. In order for the statement to accurately define Scripture alone it should read "Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine."

I think we sometimes get carried away with the word 'alone' in Protestant circles to the point where we forget it's actually implied in some technical docrinal terms we use. 'Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine' really is just a redundant statement. So I guess 'sufficient' is a sufficient term for describing the sufficiency of Scripture. :wink:

Yeah but it doesn't rule out that Tradition is also sufficient for doctrine, nor that the Church is also sufficient for doctrine.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

Hello De Maria:
"Scripture alone" means very little if we have a false definition of "scripture".
"Scripture" apparently refers to "the written word", but we have to remember that "the written word" is not a single word, or a single sentence, or a single verse, or even a single passage. An honest definition of "scripture" is; "the story" told by the words and the sentences, and apart from the story they are part of, the words and the sentences become tools for those who would make up their own story, and that explains the thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations and sects of Christianity.
Just as "a word" can be used in different sentences which do not all mean the same thing, "a sentence" can be used in different stories which do not all tell the same thing. "Scripture" is not words, or sentences, but the story which the words and sentences combine to tell.
The majority of scripture is written in story form, and therefore is written to tell a story, so the story is the key, not the words, nor the verses.
The true meaning of "scripture alone" is that the story which runs through scripture is "the context" in which the words, sentences, and "verses", must be interpreted.
One writes a story by using words and sentences according to his own personal writing style, and so the reader cannot assume word and sentence meanings, and must allow the story to define them. It is known as interpreting "in context".



I've only seen this definition once:

Scripture is sufficient for doctrine.

When I first saw this definition in the CARM website, I wondered what had become of the word "alone" in the definition. Does this definition mean that the word "alone" is assumed to follow Scripture?

Or have the writers of this definition given up on the idea that Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine?

After all, this new definition doesn't exclude anything. It states that Scripture is sufficient for doctrine, but does not exclude that Tradition may be sufficient for doctrine or that the Church may be sufficient for doctrine. So what does this new definition mean? It certainly seems to be at odds with the traditional Scripture alone definition.

Traditional Scripture alone definition? Is that a contradiction in terms? :wink:

[De Maria]

Hello De Maria:
"Scripture alone" means very little if we have a false definition of "scripture".

It means very little if we have a false definition of "alone" also.

"Scripture" apparently refers to "the written word", but we have to remember that "the written word" is not a single word, or a single sentence, or a single verse, or even a single passage. An honest definition of "scripture" is; "the story" told by the words and the sentences, and apart from the story they are part of, the words and the sentences become tools for those who would make up their own story, and that explains the thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations and sects of Christianity.
Just as "a word" can be used in different sentences which do not all mean the same thing, "a sentence" can be used in different stories which do not all tell the same thing. "Scripture" is not words, or sentences, but the story which the words and sentences combine to tell.

In this case, Scripture refers to God's revelation in written form.

The majority of scripture is written in story form, and therefore is written to tell a story, so the story is the key, not the words, nor the verses.
The true meaning of "scripture alone" is that the story which runs through scripture is "the context" in which the words, sentences, and "verses", must be interpreted.


But that has nothing to do with the doctrine of "Scripture Alone". Scripture alone is a doctrine which Luther made up to justify his break with the Church. Therefore he pretended that Church had no authority over him and came up with this doctrine to justify his position.

There is no other explanation for this doctrine since it can be found nowhere in Scripture.

One writes a story by using words and sentences according to his own personal writing style, and so the reader cannot assume word and sentence meanings, and must allow the story to define them. It is known as interpreting "in context".

Great. Pick a verse which you believe describes Scripture alone and lets go over the context.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

It means very little if we have a false definition of "alone" also.
I think that the word "alone" is self explanatory. I can't imagine anyone not thinking that it means "by it'self", or "without anything else".
Scripture however, could refer to everything that was ever written, everything that ever will be written, or anything in between

In this case, Scripture refers to "God's revelation in written form".
That definition of scripture is an unscriptural opinion, just as Luther's "scripture alone" opinion is...LOL
But that has nothing to do with the doctrine of "Scripture Alone". Scripture alone is a doctrine which Luther made up to justify his break with the Church. Therefore he pretended that Church had no authority over him and came up with this doctrine to justify his position.
I thought that this was a discussion about a *NEW* meaning for the term; "scripture alone"
There is no other explanation for this doctrine since it can be found nowhere in Scripture.This doctrine would have no validity according to Luther's position, but it should have validity for those who believe that doctrine can also be built on tradition...LOL
Great. Pick a verse which you believe describes Scripture alone and lets go over the context.
Actually, the point of my response was to point out that "picked verses" mean absolutely nothing outside of the whole story which they are part of. Rather than picking a verse and looking at the context, let us pick the context(the story which flows with continuity through scripture), and then look at the verses.
Scripture was *not* written in verses, and therefore verses, as they stand alone, are not scripture, and should not be considered as such. Scripture was written in context, and tells one continuous story from beginning to end.
Doctrines, built on verses, have divided Christianity into thousands of doctrinally disagreeing sects and denominations, and I think that it may be time to get back to the whole story of scripture, which has been lost because of man's insistance on only considering man-made scriptural divisions, rather than the whole scriptural story.
So again, my point is that "verses" are not scripture, but the story which is told by all of the text, is scripture.
That is why I say that a real, and honest, (new) definition of "scripture alone", is "the one single story which flows with continuity through the whole body of scripture".
What do you think?

[De Maria]

I think that the word "alone" is self explanatory. I can't imagine anyone not thinking that it means "by it'self", or "without anything else".

Agreed.

Scripture however, could refer to everything that was ever written, everything that ever will be written, or anything in between

Everything that ever will be written?

That definition of scripture is an unscriptural opinion, just as Luther's "scripture alone" opinion is...LOL

It is not in Scripture verbatim, that is true. But when we read Scripture as you have suggested, we see "the Lord God said," many times.

I thought that this was a discussion about a *NEW* meaning for the term; "scripture alone"

Yes. In CARM and here on this forum, I've seen it defined as "Scripture alone means Scripture is sufficient for doctrine". Dropping off the alone.

Wow, they have changed the definition again:

Sola Scriptura
The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.

http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_s.htm#Sola%20Scriptura

Note that they have not added the word "alone" in the definition still. Therefore, although Scripture may contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living, that definition doesn't preclude that another entity might also. The Church for instance. Or Tradition. Or good parents. Good preachers.

And for obvious reasons, this definition is wrong also. Scripture does not contain everything that one needs for salvation and proper living before God. Obviously, Scripture does not possess one's will. Each individual must provide that. Nor does Scripture contain an interpreter. Hardly anyone today can read the original Scriptures. We must all rely on interpreters.

This doctrine would have no validity according to Luther's position, but it should have validity for those who believe that doctrine can also be built on tradition...LOL

How so?

Actually, the point of my response was to point out that "picked verses" mean absolutely nothing outside of the whole story which they are part of. Rather than picking a verse and looking at the context, let us pick the context(the story which flows with continuity through scripture), and then look at the verses.

Excellent point. Lets look at 2 Tim for instance.

Note that in the first Chapter, Paul says, "13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

Then in the second chapter, "2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

Then in the third chapter, this idea which Protestants reduce to verse 16 and 17 but actually begins much sooner:

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

And in the 4th chapter:

2 Timothy 4

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;


The entire letter is about reminding Timothy what he heard of Paul and instructing him to find good men and pass on that information preaching in season and out of season. There is no indication here that Paul is instructing Timothy to pass out Bibles and have them figure out what the Bible says.

Now lets go to chapter 3 verse 16 and 17 and look at it in detail:

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God

Note that Paul says, "all" and not "only". Therefore, he is not setting the Scriptures apart as unique in this respect. If he were, he would be contradicting the Scriptures.

Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Note that this says that Scripture is "profitable". It doesn't say it is "necessary."

Note what it is profitable for, "reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. That is right. Exactly the overall context of 2 Timothy.

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Is he saying that Scripture is making the perfect man? NO!

Scripture is useful for what he has been talking about throughout this letter. It is useful for teaching, preaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The subject is teaching a man of God. Paul is teaching Tim how to teach a man of God. A crude analogy would be if I were to instruct my son how to fix a bike and I could say, "remember what I told you last time.. Hey and a crescent wrench would be real handy removing, putting on, and tightening bolts so that your bike will be as good as new. The subject is fixing the bike, not the exclusivity of using a crescent wrench. There are many wrenches which could be used to accomplish the same job.

In the same way, He has just told Tim to remember what he taught him and also the Scriptures because the Scriptures are useful for the purpose of teaching. If Tim does both of these things, his teaching will produce a man of God ready to accomplish God's will.

Scripture was *not* written in verses, and therefore verses, as they stand alone, are not scripture, and should not be considered as such. Scripture was written in context, and tells one continuous story from beginning to end.
Doctrines, built on verses, have divided Christianity into thousands of doctrinally disagreeing sects and denominations, and I think that it may be time to get back to the whole story of scripture, which has been lost because of man's insistance on only considering man-made scriptural divisions, rather than the whole scriptural story.
So again, my point is that "verses" are not scripture, but the story which is told by all of the text, is scripture.
That is why I say that a real, and honest, (new) definition of "scripture alone", is "the one single story which flows with continuity through the whole body of scripture".
What do you think?

Any definition for Scripture alone would be false because the Scriptures describe a teaching Church which hands down Tradition and Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

Agreed.



Everything that ever will be written?



It is not in Scripture verbatim, that is true. But when we read Scripture as you have suggested, we see "the Lord God said," many times.



Yes. In CARM and here on this forum, I've seen it defined as "Scripture alone means Scripture is sufficient for doctrine". Dropping off the alone.

Wow, they have changed the definition again:

Sola Scriptura
The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.

http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_s.htm#Sola%20Scriptura

Note that they have not added the word "alone" in the definition still. Therefore, although Scripture may contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living, that definition doesn't preclude that another entity might also. The Church for instance. Or Tradition. Or good parents. Good preachers.

And for obvious reasons, this definition is wrong also. Scripture does not contain everything that one needs for salvation and proper living before God. Obviously, Scripture does not possess one's will. Each individual must provide that. Nor does Scripture contain an interpreter. Hardly anyone today can read the original Scriptures. We must all rely on interpreters.



How so?



Excellent point. Lets look at 2 Tim for instance.

Note that in the first Chapter, Paul says, "13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

Then in the second chapter, "2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

Then in the third chapter, this idea which Protestants reduce to verse 16 and 17 but actually begins much sooner:

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

And in the 4th chapter:

2 Timothy 4

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;


The entire letter is about reminding Timothy what he heard of Paul and instructing him to find good men and pass on that information preaching in season and out of season. There is no indication here that Paul is instructing Timothy to pass out Bibles and have them figure out what the Bible says.

Now lets go to chapter 3 verse 16 and 17 and look at it in detail:

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God

Note that Paul says, "all" and not "only". Therefore, he is not setting the Scriptures apart as unique in this respect. If he were, he would be contradicting the Scriptures.

Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Note that this says that Scripture is "profitable". It doesn't say it is "necessary."

Note what it is profitable for, "reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. That is right. Exactly the overall context of 2 Timothy.

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Is he saying that Scripture is making the perfect man? NO!

Scripture is useful for what he has been talking about throughout this letter. It is useful for teaching, preaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The subject is teaching a man of God. Paul is teaching Tim how to teach a man of God. A crude analogy would be if I were to instruct my son how to fix a bike and I could say, "remember what I told you last time.. Hey and a crescent wrench would be real handy removing, putting on, and tightening bolts so that your bike will be as good as new. The subject is fixing the bike, not the exclusivity of using a crescent wrench. There are many wrenches which could be used to accomplish the same job.

In the same way, He has just told Tim to remember what he taught him and also the Scriptures because the Scriptures are useful for the purpose of teaching. If Tim does both of these things, his teaching will produce a man of God ready to accomplish God's will.



Any definition for Scripture alone would be false because the Scriptures describe a teaching Church which hands down Tradition and Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria
Hello De Maria:
I think that scripture alone holds the key to God's purpose, and what I mean by that is that with nothing more than the bible, an honest, hard studying, scholar, can discern God's purpose, and man's part in that purpose.
However, I have no illusions that any of the thousands of disagreeing sects and denominations of Christianity have that key.
I think that a bible scholar must commit to scripture only, as the only tangible definition of the faith, and I don't think that we should accept the idea that any contemporary person speaks for God.
I think that an honest bible scholar will consider the research of any other bible scholar, but will not commit to any conclusions but his own. He must always keep an open mind in his search for evidence, and never commit to a creed, or a statement of faith, as I consider them to represent the closing of one's mind.
An honest bible scholar should not study to prove his own opinions, but to disprove his own opinions. Only then will one approach the truth of the bible.
An honest bible scholar must recognize the inherent problems in bible study; such as the little known(probably hidden) fact that what we "think" is "the original Greek", is actually a "completely different language" than the Greek in which the original apostolic documents were written. He must recognize that every translation of the bible that exists today, is, at the very best, a doctrinal interpretation in one language, and then doctrinally paraphrased in another language. Virtually every bible word which pertains to the faith, has only been transliterated, rather than translated, and each was doctrinally defined by "the church", so long ago that they are all firmly established by "tradition".
One must also recognize that the bible is not "all scripture", because many writings which are endorsed by their mention in the bible, are not present in the bible, and some books which were endorsed by their mention in the bible, were actually rejected from inclusion in the bible.
Tradition of course, is different for every sect and denomination, and so is suspect right from the word go.
What do you think?

[De Maria]

Hello De Maria:
I think that scripture alone holds the key to God's purpose, and what I mean by that is that with nothing more than the bible, an honest, hard studying, scholar, can discern God's purpose, and man's part in that purpose.

That attitude is not Scriptural. God has always given us men who would teach us God's purpose and will:

Exodus 19:9
And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

Exodus 18:14-15
14And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? 15And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

Matthew 28:18-20
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And it continues to this day:

2 Timothy 2
1Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

And God expects us to obey these men:

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

However, I have no illusions that any of the thousands of disagreeing sects and denominations of Christianity have that key.
I think that a bible scholar must commit to scripture only, as the only tangible definition of the faith, and I don't think that we should accept the idea that any contemporary person speaks for God.
I think that an honest bible scholar will consider the research of any other bible scholar, but will not commit to any conclusions but his own. He must always keep an open mind in his search for evidence, and never commit to a creed, or a statement of faith, as I consider them to represent the closing of one's mind.
An honest bible scholar should not study to prove his own opinions, but to disprove his own opinions. Only then will one approach the truth of the bible.
An honest bible scholar must recognize the inherent problems in bible study; such as the little known(probably hidden) fact that what we "think" is "the original Greek", is actually a "completely different language" than the Greek in which the original apostolic documents were written. He must recognize that every translation of the bible that exists today, is, at the very best, a doctrinal interpretation in one language, and then doctrinally paraphrased in another language. Virtually every bible word which pertains to the faith, has only been transliterated, rather than translated, and each was doctrinally defined by "the church", so long ago that they are all firmly established by "tradition".
One must also recognize that the bible is not "all scripture", because many writings which are endorsed by their mention in the bible, are not present in the bible, and some books which were endorsed by their mention in the bible, were actually rejected from inclusion in the bible.
Tradition of course, is different for every sect and denomination, and so is suspect right from the word go.
What do you think?

An honest Bible Scholar will not ignore these statements in the Bible:

1 Timothy 3:15
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Matthew 18:17
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

Hello De Maria:
I concede that studying to determine what scripture teaches may be less scriptural than listening to teachers "sent from God", but how does one determine who these teachers are, and how do you know that I am not one of them?...LOL
Every sect of Christianity, follows teachers it believes are sent by God, yet all sects disagree on what God teaches. Who do we listen to and obey?
Jesus told his converts that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, and they should do whatever the Pharisees tell them to do, but they should not act as the Pharisees do.
Jesus endorsed the teachings of the Pharisees...how many Pharisees have you listened to and obeyed?...LOL
What is "The Church"?
The biblical word "church", is supposed to represent the Greek word for "assembly". Other biblical terms which mean "assembly" are; "a people", "a tribe", "a meeting", "a house", "a crowd", "a synagogue", "a body", and "two or more gathered together". Nations and kingdoms are also assemblies.
The truth is that the word "church" refers to "a building of worship", and is a false translation of a Greek word which means "assembly", so the word "church" should not even be in scripture.
What do you think?

[De Maria]

Hello De Maria:

Hello Provoker,

I concede

Then you agree that Scripture alone is not a teaching of Scripture?

that studying to determine what scripture teaches may be less scriptural than listening to teachers "sent from God", but how does one determine who these teachers are, and how do you know that I am not one of them?...LOL

Scripture tells us how:

First of all, Scripture tells us to "keep the traditions". Therefore, any teachers which tell us to eschew tradition automatically disqualify themselves.

2 Thessalonians 3: 6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Which is the Church which is condemned by all others for keeping traditions?
Which is the only Church which can trace itself to Apostolic times?

Every sect of Christianity, follows teachers it believes are sent by God, yet all sects disagree on what God teaches. Who do we listen to and obey?

We should believe and obey those who are clearly teaching what God revealed. God revealed:

1. that Jesus is the Christ.
2. that Jesus is God.
3. that God is a Holy Trinity.
4. that we Jesus is the Bread of Life.
5 that the bread which He left is His Flesh.
6. that the cup of blessing is the Blood of the Covenant which He shed for us.
7. that He would build a Church.
8. that the Church which He built would last until the end.
9. that the Church which He built is infallible.
10. that the Church which He built has His authoritative.
11. that the Church which He built is His Body......and much, much more.

Which Church accepts this description in faith and calls Herself "Christ on earth"?

Jesus told his converts that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, and they should do whatever the Pharisees tell them to do, but they should not act as the Pharisees do.
Jesus endorsed the teachings of the Pharisees...how many Pharisees have you listened to and obeyed?...LOL

Jesus said this before all was accomplished. Remember, you said not to read single verses. If you read on, you will see that Jesus tells us much about Pharisaic behavior and that "this" generation will pass when all is accomplished:

Matt 24;34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

And all was fulfilled on the Cross:
John 19:28
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

At this point the transition occured from Mosaic Law to the Law of Grace. Upon His resurrection, Jesus gave authority to the Apostles.

Matthew 28: 17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And especially to Peter:

John 21: 15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

What is "The Church"?
The biblical word "church", is supposed to represent the Greek word for "assembly". Other biblical terms which mean "assembly" are; "a people", "a tribe", "a meeting", "a house", "a crowd", "a synagogue", "a body", and "two or more gathered together". Nations and kingdoms are also assemblies.
The truth is that the word "church" refers to "a building of worship", and is a false translation of a Greek word which means "assembly", so the word "church" should not even be in scripture.
What do you think?

I believe that the word Church does belong in Scripture. The oldest translations of the Scriptures contain it and God's truth is absolute. It is only innovative thinking which tries to remove it. But it was not so from the beginning. Therefore I believe the Church which I believe God placed in charge of my soul because:

Matthew 18: 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

and further because Scripture calls the Church the pillar of Truth:
1 Tim 3: 15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

and because Scripture says we must obey them:
Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

God revealed:
1. that Jesus is the Christ.
2. that Jesus is God.
3. that God is a Holy Trinity.
4. that we Jesus is the Bread of Life.
5 that the bread which He left is His Flesh.
6. that the cup of blessing is the Blood of the Covenant which He shed for us.
7. that He would build a Church.
8. that the Church which He built would last until the end.
9. that the Church which He built is infallible.
10. that the Church which He built has His authoritative.
11. that the Church which He built is His Body......and much, much more.
Which Church accepts this description in faith and calls Herself "Christ on earth"?

Hello Kippers:
Of course, the way you believe is the way you should act. When one chooses to belong to an organization, he should feel honour bound to abide by the rules of the organization.
My personal position is, that I do not belong to any organization, so I am free to study in the way which is most acceptable to me, to form opinions according to the preponderance of the evidence that I have, and to continually seek for new evidence, in search of truth.
It is my personal opinion, based on my own study of the bible story, that no existing "Christian" organization is a continuation of the 1st century apostolic "Christian" assembly, and I would be happy to discuss the scriptural reasons for my opinion, if you could discuss such a sensitive subject without taking offense.
What do you think?

[De Maria]

Hello Kippers:
Of course, the way you believe is the way you should act.

That is true. One should act in accordance with their beliefs. Do you claim to believe the Bible?

When one chooses to belong to an organization, he should feel honour bound to abide by the rules of the organization.
My personal position is, that I do not belong to any organization, so I am free to study in the way which is most acceptable to me, to form opinions according to the preponderance of the evidence that I have, and to continually seek for new evidence, in search of truth.

The Bible says that when we find the pearl of great price, the Truth, we should hang on to it. The Truth is absolute and doesn't keep changing. The Bible also says that there are some that are:

2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I hope you are not one of those.

The Bible says that Jesus is our model and Jesus, God, voluntarily submitted to man:

Luke 2:51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

And Jesus is the model we should follow:

Matthew 8:22
But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

And we must submit to the Church because:

1 Corinthians 6:3-5
3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

So it would seem the Bible is telling us to be members of the Church, the Body of Christ:

Romans 12:5
5So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

It is my personal opinion, based on my own study of the bible story, that no existing "Christian" organization is a continuation of the 1st century apostolic "Christian" assembly, and I would be happy to discuss the scriptural reasons for my opinion, if you could discuss such a sensitive subject without taking offense. What do you think?

I would be happy to discuss your scriptural reasons for your decision. In turn, I will give my reasons why I believe Jesus' Church will stand until the end.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

I would be happy to discuss your scriptural reasons for your decision. In turn, I will give my reasons why I believe Jesus' Church will stand until the end.

Hello De Maria:
Regarding "Jesus' church", it is my opinion that the bible teaches that if we have heard the good news that Jesus proclaimed; "the Christ is going to resurrect the Davidic kingdom from the dead", and we are so looking forward to it that we have made a heartfelt committment to live according to God's laws in the coming kingdom(circumcision of the heart), we have already become part of the general assembly known as "spiritual Israel", "the spiritual kingdom", and "the body of Christ".
If we assemble regularly with people of like mind, and a person, or persons, has been charged with overseeing and maintaining the social/moral/doctrinal standard of the local assembly, then we should follow their direction on those issues, or leave the assembly.
Jesus and his apostles were not converting people to a moral or social standard, to a set of rituals, or to a building of worship, but a completely united assembly was all important. When social, moral, or doctrinal problems arose in a local assembly, the overseer of that assembly would give advice on how to solve the problem, in order to maintain the necessary unity of the assembly(love of the brethren).
The mission of everyone in the assembly, is to enlarge the assembly, and to maintain unity in the assembly, so that the christ will have a sufficiently large, united assembly, for him to lead to kingdom resurrection.
What do you think?

[The Other Guy]

First of all, I'd like to note that you are using a nonbiblical source to get a better understanding of your nonbiblical doctrine.



No, I'm seeking to define a word in the English language. If using a dictionary is wrong for doing that, then I'm actually writing a microwave cookery tutorial here!



Yes I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, but that wasn't the point of your original post. As a matter of fact, I was under the impression that you were concerned that CARM was wavering on that belief! Sorry about that.



"As much as is needed" is not the same thing as the "only thing needed".



Correct. However, this hardly proves your point. ‘As much as is needed’ is synonymous with ‘all that is needed’ with a further implication of not being in excess over what is needed. The term ‘sufficient’ thus encompasses what is needed: nothing more, nothing less. Let’s put the statement ‘Scripture is sufficient for doctrine’ into question and answer form. Q: What is sufficient for doctrine? (i.e. What is as much as I need for doctrine?) A: Scripture. Where are all the other things I need for doctrine? Unless the statement has qualifiers around it from where you got it, then nothing else is needed for doctrine according to the statement. Scripture is enough for doctrine.



Many things can be "as much as is needed." Good parenting, good preaching, patience (as it says elsewhere in Scripture). Therefore, Scripture alone is not implied in this statement.



As much as is needed for what? That's the whole point. Scripture is not sufficient for, say, writing microwave cookery tutorials (as disappointing as that is ) but, as any Protestant in line with Luther and Calvin would argue, it is as much as is needed for providing the rule of faith for God's people. That statement is positive, the flip side is that I need nothing else to provide the rule of faith for God’s people, i.e. Scripture is sufficient for doctrine. The point of the word ‘sufficient’ is to indicate what is needed, not everything that can be used. If Scripture were not sufficient, then other things would be needed.



The fact is, that leaving "alone" out of this definition changes the entire doctrine of Sola Scriptura as it has been historically understood.



Sorry, for the same reason as noted above, this definition falls way short of defining Sola Scriptura.



I think I better understand the problem now. The issue appears to be whether CARM has in any way softened it's stance on sola scriptura. Assuming someone who was writing for or supporting CARM made the statement ‘Scripture is sufficient for doctrine’, my statement about the understanding of the sentence stands. Here's why:



The Bible is the Word of God, and that its original manuscripts are free from errors and contradictions. It is the one and only infallible, authoritative, and trustworthy rule for faith and life. (2 Peter. 1: 21, 2 Tim. 3: 16). The Catholic apocrypha is not inspired scripture.



That is from CARM's statement of faith. If that's not clear enough, then I don't know what is. The second sentence may not use the word 'sufficient', but it certainly rules out any other authority being used for what Scripture is supposed to be used for. Whether or not I agree is not the point here, the point is CARM believes there is nothing else needed for providing the rule for faith and life.



False. No such implication exists. In order for the statement to accurately define Scripture alone it should read "Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine."



Understood in the context presented above, you are wrong. The statement is completely legitimate to define sola scriptura, even if you may consider it shorthand. The point is, as a Protestant who agrees wholeheartedly with CARM's statement of faith on the Bible, saying 'Scripture is sufficient for doctrine' to articulate the sufficiency of Scripture is not a problem for me. Why should it be a problem for you if you don't believe it? If you think CARM is going to agree with you that Tradition is also needed, just read the statement of faith. They're not.



Even if someone who disagrees with CARM and wasn’t merely summarising their belief made the statement, I'll bet they didn't leave the statement at that, but added a qualifying statement.



Yeah but it doesn't rule out that Tradition is also sufficient for doctrine, nor that the Church is also sufficient for doctrine.



Sincerely,



De Maria



Sorry, for anyone associated with CARM or who agrees with them, it does. The statement is a mere assertion of scriptural sufficiency, but it is a perfectly valid way of expressing it.



TOG

[De Maria]

Hello De Maria:
Regarding "Jesus' church", it is my opinion that the bible teaches that if we have heard the good news that Jesus proclaimed; "the Christ is going to resurrect the Davidic kingdom from the dead", and we are so looking forward to it that we have made a heartfelt committment to live according to God's laws in the coming kingdom(circumcision of the heart), we have already become part of the general assembly known as "spiritual Israel", "the spiritual kingdom", and "the body of Christ".
If we assemble regularly with people of like mind, and a person, or persons, has been charged with overseeing and maintaining the social/moral/doctrinal standard of the local assembly, then we should follow their direction on those issues, or leave the assembly.
Jesus and his apostles were not converting people to a moral or social standard, to a set of rituals, or to a building of worship, but a completely united assembly was all important. When social, moral, or doctrinal problems arose in a local assembly, the overseer of that assembly would give advice on how to solve the problem, in order to maintain the necessary unity of the assembly(love of the brethren).
The mission of everyone in the assembly, is to enlarge the assembly, and to maintain unity in the assembly, so that the christ will have a sufficiently large, united assembly, for him to lead to kingdom resurrection.
What do you think?

I think you gave me reasons but no scripture to go with them.

You did say you were going to provide Scriptural reasons, didn't you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

No, I'm seeking to define a word in the English language. If using a dictionary is wrong for doing that, then I'm actually writing a microwave cookery tutorial here!

Ooo, gettin' testy!

I didn't say there was anything wrong with using a third party. I just noted that you didn't confine yourself to the Bible as would be expected from someone who believes in the Bible ALONE.

Yes I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, but that wasn't the point of your original post. As a matter of fact, I was under the impression that you were concerned that CARM was wavering on that belief! Sorry about that.

From the new definition, the sufficiency of the Bible is not in question. It is the definition of the Bible "alone". Sufficiency of the Bible is another question.

Correct. However, this hardly proves your point. ‘As much as is needed’ is synonymous with ‘all that is needed’ with a further implication of not being in excess over what is needed.

First, find this in the Scriptures.
Second, As much as is needed is not synonymous with all that is needed.
As much implies I could use more if it was provided.
All that is needed implies that the capacity is arrived. There is room for no more.

Third, neither excludes another entity from having as much or all that is needed either.

Therefore, both of these attempts to redefine SOLA Scriptura fall short of the mark actually are definitions for some form of sufficiency of Scripture.

Now if you want to add into the definition the word "alone" or "only", then we have no quarrel.

The term ‘sufficient’ thus encompasses what is needed: nothing more, nothing less.

But it doesn't exclude Church, tradition, preaching or anything else.

Let’s put the statement ‘Scripture is sufficient for doctrine’ into question and answer form. Q: What is sufficient for doctrine? (i.e. What is as much as I need for doctrine?) A: Scripture. Where are all the other things I need for doctrine? Unless the statement has qualifiers around it from where you got it, then nothing else is needed for doctrine according to the statement. Scripture is enough for doctrine.

Great idea! What is sufficient for doctrine? Well, since the Church canonized the Scriptures and has preached them through the centuries. Then the Church is sufficient for doctrine. Since the Scriptures are a part of the Traditions of the Church, then the Traditions are sufficient for doctrine. Since Bishops, Priests and Teachers are knowledgeable of the doctrines and traditions and the Scriptures, then they are sufficient to teach us doctrine.

So, unless you say Scripture ALONE is sufficient for doctrine, you exclude nothing. The definition is still not scriptural, but it at least expresses your belief correctly.

As much as is needed for what? That's the whole point. Scripture is not sufficient for, say, writing microwave cookery tutorials (as disappointing as that is ) but, as any Protestant in line with Luther and Calvin would argue, it is as much as is needed for providing the rule of faith for God's people.

A Protestant in line with Luther or Calvin would assume the word "alone" was in there. But not a Catholic, nor a high Anglicans, nor an Orthodox nor even a Jew. And I don't believe any of these groups would argue with the idea that the Church is also sufficient for doctrine.

That statement is positive, the flip side is that I need nothing else to provide the rule of faith for God’s people, i.e. Scripture is sufficient for doctrine. The point of the word ‘sufficient’ is to indicate what is needed, not everything that can be used. If Scripture were not sufficient, then other things would be needed.

Nor would any of these nonProtestant groups argue with the sufficiency of Scripture. But they would argue with the idea of Scripture "alone" being sufficient.

I think I better understand the problem now. The issue appears to be whether CARM has in any way softened it's stance on sola scriptura. Assuming someone who was writing for or supporting CARM made the statement ‘Scripture is sufficient for doctrine’, my statement about the understanding of the sentence stands. Here's why:

Very good. They have no trouble making it clear in that statement. They should have no problem making it clear in the definition.

The Bible is the Word of God, and that its original manuscripts are free from errors and contradictions. It is the one and only infallible, authoritative, and trustworthy rule for faith and life. (2 Peter. 1: 21, 2 Tim. 3: 16). The Catholic apocrypha is not inspired scripture.


That is from CARM's statement of faith. If that's not clear enough, then I don't know what is.

That is abundantly clear. Now they need to clear up the definition.

The second sentence may not use the word 'sufficient', but it certainly rules out any other authority being used for what Scripture is supposed to be used for. Whether or not I agree is not the point here, the point is CARM believes there is nothing else needed for providing the rule for faith and life.

Perhaps, but that is not the idea that this definition conveys. And CARM isn't the only site using it.

Understood in the context presented above, you are wrong. The statement is completely legitimate to define sola scriptura, even if you may consider it shorthand. The point is, as a Protestant who agrees wholeheartedly with CARM's statement of faith on the Bible, saying 'Scripture is sufficient for doctrine' to articulate the sufficiency of Scripture is not a problem for me. Why should it be a problem for you if you don't believe it? If you think CARM is going to agree with you that Tradition is also needed, just read the statement of faith. They're not.

Because it does not express the truth about Sola Scriptura accurately. In the absence of the CARM statement of faith a person could be misled into believing that Sola Scriptura meant something which it doesn't.

Even if someone who disagrees with CARM and wasn’t merely summarising their belief made the statement, I'll bet they didn't leave the statement at that, but added a qualifying statement.

Perhaps, but that isn't the point. The point is, say what you mean. If you're defining a doctrine, say what you mean.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[The Other Guy]

Ooo, gettin' testy!

Can't I use sarcasm without getting hot under the collar? I guess sarcasm and hyperbole must be lost modes of expression then...

I didn't say there was anything wrong with using a third party. I just noted that you didn't confine yourself to the Bible as would be expected from someone who believes in the Bible ALONE.

I believe in sola scriptura, not sola scriptura extremis! You have nothing wrong with you using a third party, but you seem to have something wrong with me using one. If I use one, I automatically deny sola scriptura right? Here's a question, how do I understand it in English if I don't understand English? Oh no! I need to use a third party! The skies are falling! Oops! There's that nasty 'hyperbole' thing again.

From the new definition, the sufficiency of the Bible is not in question. It is the definition of the Bible "alone". Sufficiency of the Bible is another question.

Sufficiency of the Bible is all the quote deals with. Since when does every doctrinal quote about Scripture from a Protestant have to deal with sola scriptura?

First, find this in the Scriptures.
Second, As much as is needed is not synonymous with all that is needed.
As much implies I could use more if it was provided.
All that is needed implies that the capacity is arrived. There is room for no more.

Third, neither excludes another entity from having as much or all that is needed either.

Therefore, both of these attempts to redefine SOLA Scriptura fall short of the mark actually are definitions for some form of sufficiency of Scripture.

First, that's not the point of my response. I'm not trying to defend sola scriptura here.

Second, 'as much as' and 'all' are of course not synonymous. However, when you add 'needed' to both terms, they both serve to rule out anything not needed. Do I need anything else if Scripture provides me with as much as I need? NO! Besides, I didn't say that 'as much as is needed' and 'all that is needed' are completely synonymous without qualifying the statement.

Thirdly, I'll give you this. That is correct. I did make a blunder when I said, "Adding 'alone' to that sentence is unnecessary, because it's implied in the definition of 'sufficient'." However, I was not incorrect over my final conclusions. The statement is about the sufficiency of scripture. Nothing more, nothing less. Strictly, it makes no comment at all on sola scriptura. Therefore, your argument falls flat. If the statement doesn't say anything about sola scriptura, we can't make any comments from this statement as to whether the author believes in sola scriptura or not. They obviously believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, and CARM's statement of faith should prove they believe in sola scriptura.

Now if you want to add into the definition the word "alone" or "only", then we have no quarrel.

If I want to talk about sola scriptura, I could. If I wanted to make my point on sola scriptura abundantly clear, I would. Otherwise, I couldn't be bothered going to all the extra effort of saying one more word. Do you know how draining that can be? :teeth:

But it doesn't exclude Church, tradition, preaching or anything else.

It doesn't include them either. So what? Both arguments are arguments from silence.

Great idea! What is sufficient for doctrine? Well, since the Church canonized the Scriptures and has preached them through the centuries. Then the Church is sufficient for doctrine. Since the Scriptures are a part of the Traditions of the Church, then the Traditions are sufficient for doctrine. Since Bishops, Priests and Teachers are knowledgeable of the doctrines and traditions and the Scriptures, then they are sufficient to teach us doctrine.

For a start, I don't believe it was the church who canonised the Scriptures. God did, and the church merely recognised his handiwork. Therefore, the church is not the authority over Scripture, but the other way around. If the Scriptures are merely part of the traditions of the church, yes, Tradition is sufficient for doctrine, but Scripture then becomes insufficient. Where did the teachers etc. ultimately get their information? Scripture. They are sufficient because they are trained in Scripture, they are not inherently sufficient.

So, unless you say Scripture ALONE is sufficient for doctrine, you exclude nothing. The definition is still not scriptural, but it at least expresses your belief correctly.

Like I said before, you include nothing either. The statement expresses scripural sufficiency correctly, which is all it aims to do.

A Protestant in line with Luther or Calvin would assume the word "alone" was in there. But not a Catholic, nor a high Anglicans, nor an Orthodox nor even a Jew. And I don't believe any of these groups would argue with the idea that the Church is also sufficient for doctrine.

I'm a Protestant in line with Luther and Calvin on sola scriptura and I don't care. Though the reason is different from what I said below, because I was wrong. Further proof I'm not perfect. The point I now wish to make is that the statement 'Scripture is sufficient for doctrine' is not an accurate definition of sola scriptura because it's not a definition of sola scriptura at all! However, my first sentence completely falsifies your first statement in your above quote unless you can prove I don't believe in sola scriptura. And might I add to that, good luck! You'll need it.

Nor would any of these nonProtestant groups argue with the sufficiency of Scripture. But they would argue with the idea of Scripture "alone" being sufficient.

They would argue with sola scriptura. However, neither side would argue with the statement as it stands, unless they argue for partim partim sufficiency. By reading into the quote something that isn't there, you're dividing the groups where there is no divide. Different sides may have different ideas behind what sufficiency implied (material vs formal sufficiency), but neither side will disagree with the statement as it stands. As an absolute statement, it doesn't even say anything about material or formal sufficiency. It just says that Scripture is sufficient.

Very good. They have no trouble making it clear in that statement. They should have no problem making it clear in the definition.

They don't because they're not defining sola scriptura.

Perhaps, but that is not the idea that this definition conveys. And CARM isn't the only site using it.

Directly, you're right, as I made clear my error above. Contextually, I'm far closer than you are, because their statement of faith plainly says they believe in sola scriptura. This means that, if understood as coming from someone who believes in sola scriptura, the statement can serve to bring that to the surface of someone's thinking indirectly. Coming from anyone at CARM, the quote is not going to imply any other authority is sufficient. Basically, I'm arguing what I argued previously, but revising my statement that 'Scripture is sufficient for doctrine' correctly defines sola scriptura.

Because it does not express the truth about Sola Scriptura accurately. In the absence of the CARM statement of faith a person could be misled into believing that Sola Scriptura meant something which it doesn't.

Again, it doesn't express anything about sola scriptura at all. If someone is misled into an incorrect understanding of CARM's stance on sola scriptura based on this quote, that's no fault of CARM's.

Perhaps, but that isn't the point. The point is, say what you mean. If you're defining a doctrine, say what you mean.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The point is, they did. You just want to read the into the statement sola scriptura, when it says nothing directly about it. I hope the fact that I've admitted where I was wrong shows I'm not letting anger get the better of me here.

TOG

[De Maria]

.The statement expresses scripural sufficiency correctly, which is all it aims to do.

Then shouldn't it be called Scriptural sufficiency? This is a direct quote from the CARM Theological dictionary:

Sola Scriptura
The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.
http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_s.htm

For a start, I don't believe it was the church who canonised the Scriptures. God did, and the church merely recognised his handiwork. Therefore, the church is not the authority over Scripture, but the other way around. If the Scriptures are merely part of the traditions of the church, yes, Tradition is sufficient for doctrine, but Scripture then becomes insufficient. Where did the teachers etc. ultimately get their information? Scripture. They are sufficient because they are trained in Scripture, they are not inherently sufficient.

Interesting. Perhaps I'll start another topic and we can discuss that in more detail there. My only concern here is pointing out what you stated below.

The point I now wish to make is that the statement 'Scripture is sufficient for doctrine' is not an accurate definition of sola scriptura because it's not a definition of sola scriptura at all!

Thank you. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[The Other Guy]

Then shouldn't it be called Scriptural sufficiency? This is a direct quote from the CARM Theological dictionary:

Sola Scriptura
The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.
http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_s.htm

Thank you for finally providing the context! The definition of sola scriptura they offer is not actually 'Scripture is sufficient for doctrine', it's 'The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.' [emphasis mine]. However, as I think we both made clear earlier, 'all that is necessary' is not identical to 'as much as is necessary'. I'll illustrate it with your own quote:

All that is needed implies that the capacity is arrived. There is room for no more.

There it is. Sola scriptura by your own definition. Therefore no, their exact statement is fine for defining sola scriptura. I personally think they did a better job in their statement of faith, but that's beside the point. The definition is sufficient for its purpose. It could be better quality, but it is adequate for the task. I think adding 'alone' will heighten the emphasis, which is always a good thing when defining doctrines. However, it doesn't really need it.

Thank you. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Sincerely,

De Maria

If you agree that the statement you offered didn't have anything to do with sola scriptura, why raise the issue at all? Your statement wasn't how CARM defined sola scriptura.

TOG

[The Other Guy]

Great idea! What is sufficient for doctrine? Well, since the Church canonized the Scriptures and has preached them through the centuries. Then the Church is sufficient for doctrine. Since the Scriptures are a part of the Traditions of the Church, then the Traditions are sufficient for doctrine. Since Bishops, Priests and Teachers are knowledgeable of the doctrines and traditions and the Scriptures, then they are sufficient to teach us doctrine..


For a start, I don't believe it was the church who canonised the Scriptures. God did, and the church merely recognised his handiwork. Therefore, the church is not the authority over Scripture, but the other way around. If the Scriptures are merely part of the traditions of the church, yes, Tradition is sufficient for doctrine, but Scripture then becomes insufficient. Where did the teachers etc. ultimately get their information? Scripture. They are sufficient because they are trained in Scripture, they are not inherently sufficient.
Interesting. Perhaps I'll start another topic and we can discuss that in more detail there. My only concern here is pointing out what you stated below.

Interesting. Perhaps I'll start another topic and we can discuss that in more detail there. My only concern here is pointing out what you stated below.

If you wish, but not here. The place for that debate is Ecclesiology 201.

[De Maria]

Thank you for finally providing the context! The definition of sola scriptura they offer is not actually 'Scripture is sufficient for doctrine', it's 'The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.' [emphasis mine]. However, as I think we both made clear earlier, 'all that is necessary' is not identical to 'as much as is necessary'. I'll illustrate it with your own quote:


Didn't I also say that neither "all that is necessary" nor "as much as is necessary" were adequate to express the idea of Sola Scriptura.

Now if the definition said that Scripture "alone" contained such, that would be different.

or if it said that Scripture "alone is necessary" that would be different also.

However, it doesn't. And the fact is that many things "contain" that which is necessary and many things are necessary, not Scripture "alone".

There it is. Sola scriptura by your own definition. Therefore no, their exact statement is fine for defining sola scriptura. I personally think they did a better job in their statement of faith, but that's beside the point. The definition is sufficient for its purpose. It could be better quality, but it is adequate for the task. I think adding 'alone' will heighten the emphasis, which is always a good thing when defining doctrines. However, it doesn't really need it.

No, you should have quoted further,

I said and I quote:

First, find this in the Scriptures.
Second, As much as is needed is not synonymous with all that is needed.
As much implies I could use more if it was provided.
All that is needed implies that the capacity is arrived. There is room for no more.

Third, neither excludes another entity from having as much or all that is needed either.

Therefore, both of these attempts to redefine SOLA Scriptura fall short of the mark actually are definitions for some form of sufficiency of Scripture.

Now if you want to add into the definition the word "alone" or "only", then we have no quarrel.

If you agree that the statement you offered didn't have anything to do with sola scriptura, why raise the issue at all? Your statement wasn't how CARM defined sola scriptura.

Actually, I believe it was. I was not aware that CARM had changed their definition. Unless I am grossly mistaken, their Theological dictionary used to say, "Scripture Alone: The teaching that Scripture is sufficient for doctrine." It had been years since I had seen that definition and I was reminded of it when I saw a debate entitled "Scripture is sufficient for doctrine" between a Catholic and a Protestant on this forum. The fact is, as it is titled, there is no debate at all unless the word "alone" is inferred.

However, the new CARM definition is little better in expressing the unique role of Scripture implied by the title "Sola Scriptura". And, the new definition is not found in Scripture either.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

I think you gave me reasons but no scripture to go with them.
You did say you were going to provide Scriptural reasons, didn't you?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hello De Maria:
Let me ask you what you would accept as scriptural reason?
If you expect me to quote chapter and verse to prove my position, then we have different ideas of what the word "scripture" means.
Have you ever read a book with a surprise ending, where at several different points in the story you thought you knew "who done it", but when you finished the whole book, you were surprized to find that it required the "whole story" to bring about a proper conclusion?
If you had stopped reading at one of those points where you thought you had it figured out, you would never know the real story. When you discussed the story with others who had stopped reading at other points where the story appeared to be resolved, you would forever be divided into different sects, just as Christianity is.
There is a very clear continuing story running through scripture, the flow of which has been completely interupted by men's division of scripture into verses, testaments, and dispensations, and these man-made divisions tend to be interpreted as if each division stands on it's own. This method of scripture interpretation completely ignores the story which runs with amazing continuity through scripture...the story which is the greater context in which all the details of scripture should be interpreted.
Neither the English of our English bibles, nor the Byzantine language we study as "original Greek" in our seminaries, can be directly translated from first century Koine Greek(the original language of the new testament), and so all we have to work with is text, doctrinally paraphrased from a long dead language.
My point here is that quoting selected portions of doctrinally interpreted and paraphrased text, is hardly quoting scripture...however, offering one's personal synopsis of the complete **undivided** story told by scripture, is likely to be a lot closer to actually "quoting scripture".
What I propose is to present a panoramic view of scripture, by presenting scripturally recorded historical events in chronological order, showing that there is an heretofore unrecognized story running through "scripture alone", which has remained hidden behind the man-made divisions of scripture.
I hope that the details of my scriptural synopsizing will be recognizable enough to you, that you will consider it to be a fair representation of scripture.
What do you think?

[De Maria]

Hello De Maria:
Let me ask you what you would accept as scriptural reason?
If you expect me to quote chapter and verse to prove my position, then we have different ideas of what the word "scripture" means.
Have you ever read a book with a surprise ending, where at several different points in the story you thought you knew "who done it", but when you finished the whole book, you were surprized to find that it required the "whole story" to bring about a proper conclusion?
If you had stopped reading at one of those points where you thought you had it figured out, you would never know the real story. When you discussed the story with others who had stopped reading at other points where the story appeared to be resolved, you would forever be divided into different sects, just as Christianity is.
There is a very clear continuing story running through scripture, the flow of which has been completely interupted by men's division of scripture into verses, testaments, and dispensations, and these man-made divisions tend to be interpreted as if each division stands on it's own. This method of scripture interpretation completely ignores the story which runs with amazing continuity through scripture...the story which is the greater context in which all the details of scripture should be interpreted.
Neither the English of our English bibles, nor the Byzantine language we study as "original Greek" in our seminaries, can be directly translated from first century Koine Greek(the original language of the new testament), and so all we have to work with is text, doctrinally paraphrased from a long dead language.
My point here is that quoting selected portions of doctrinally interpreted and paraphrased text, is hardly quoting scripture...however, offering one's personal synopsis of the complete **undivided** story told by scripture, is likely to be a lot closer to actually "quoting scripture".
What I propose is to present a panoramic view of scripture, by presenting scripturally recorded historical events in chronological order, showing that there is an heretofore unrecognized story running through "scripture alone", which has remained hidden behind the man-made divisions of scripture.
I hope that the details of my scriptural synopsizing will be recognizable enough to you, that you will consider it to be a fair representation of scripture.
What do you think?
Hello Provoker,
I have yet to find an underlying theme in Scripture which condones one eschewing the authority of the Church. Please point that out to me. Because it seems that is what you believe. Am I right?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

Hello Provoker,
I have yet to find an underlying theme in Scripture which condones one eschewing the authority of the Church. Please point that out to me. Because it seems that is what you believe. Am I right?

Sincerely,

De Maria
Hello De Maria:
I would not deny the authority of an organization over it's freewill membership, when that freewill membership includes one's acceptance of the authority of the organization.
In fact, I recognize that seeking to know something which is contrary to the doctrines of an organization one has freely committed to, is not an acceptable persuit.
I will be happy to point out what I see as the underlying theme of the bible, but I accept no responsibility for what you, or anyone, does with the knowledge.
The story of Adam and Eve is an explanation of why it is appointed unto man once to die, but there is no suggestion anywhere in the whole old testament, that anyone was under any further judgement because of Adam's sin.
God chose the children of Israel to become a great nation by keeping God's laws, and influencing all the nations of the world to also keep God's laws, thus bringing about world peace(the blessing of all the people's of the earth).
God's everlasting covenant was to make Israel into a great nation which would be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth, as long as Israel kept God's laws(remained righteous). If Israel should fail to keep God's laws, God would turn His face away only until Israel repented, at which time God would return Israel to His favour, and Israel would continue on to becoming the great nation which would be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth.
When Israel failed to keep God's laws by splitting into two enemy nations which were both destroyed by their enemies before they could repent(reunite), God was obliged to turn His face away from Israel, and by extension, away from all the peoples of the earth, and God is waiting for Israel to repent before He can legally(by the terms of His own everlasting covenant) return Israel to His favour, and continue His plan to bless all the peoples of the earth.
Because covenant Israel has not existed since it's fall(when it split into two doomed enemy nations 2900 years ago), the first order of business in God's planned blessing(salvation) of all the peoples of the earth, is the resurrection of covenant Israel...to repentance.
When the assembly of those who have the spirit of "the kingdom of Israel" is large enough, the messiah will lead it to repossession of the promised land(all land between the Euphrates and the Nile). When the final trump sounds, indicating that the battle has been won, then in the twinkling of an eye, all of "Israel in spirit", will be changed into "the kingdom of Israel", resurrected from the dead, with the messiah on the throne of David.
In order to make sure that Israel will not fall away again, God will make a new everlasting covenant with resurrected Israel, which will consist entirely of God writing His laws forever on the hearts of Israel so that all will know God, and every generation of Israel will do by nature the things contained in the law, thus the everlasting(old) covenant will be forever fulfilled.
All of God's promises will have been fulfilled.
Jesus came, with the good news of the kingdom, to backslidden Jews who no longer had faith in kingdom resurrection, and he was killed because the chief priests and Pharisees feared that he would start a war with Rome, and all the Jews would end up being destroyed.
The gospel, as taught by the post Nicean official church of the Roman empire, was established to unite all the paganized factions of 4th century Christianity, under a "Universal" religion.
If there is any part of my synopsis that you do not recognize, or would like to challenge, then please, let the discussion begin...LOL

[De Maria]

Hello De Maria:
I would not deny the authority of an organization over it's freewill membership, when that freewill membership includes one's acceptance of the authority of the organization.

Do you deny the authority of Jesus Christ over all humanity? If Jesus Christ formed a Church, would that Church have His authority?

In fact, I recognize that seeking to know something which is contrary to the doctrines of an organization one has freely committed to, is not an acceptable persuit.

You freely believe in Sola Scriptura, don't you? Shouldn't you be able to answer my questions from Scripture? Shouldn't you be able to tell me where Scripture says what you believe?

I will be happy to point out what I see as the underlying theme of the bible, but I accept no responsibility for what you, or anyone, does with the knowledge.

Nor would I ask you to be responsible.

The story of Adam and Eve is an explanation of why it is appointed unto man once to die, but there is no suggestion anywhere in the whole old testament, that anyone was under any further judgement because of Adam's sin.

But the New Testament tells us what the Old Testament didn't:
Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.


God chose the children of Israel to become a great nation by keeping God's laws, and influencing all the nations of the world to also keep God's laws, thus bringing about world peace(the blessing of all the people's of the earth).
God's everlasting covenant was to make Israel into a great nation which would be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth, as long as Israel kept God's laws(remained righteous). If Israel should fail to keep God's laws, God would turn His face away only until Israel repented, at which time God would return Israel to His favour, and Israel would continue on to becoming the great nation which would be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth.
When Israel failed to keep God's laws by splitting into two enemy nations which were both destroyed by their enemies before they could repent(reunite), God was obliged to turn His face away from Israel, and by extension, away from all the peoples of the earth, and God is waiting for Israel to repent before He can legally(by the terms of His own everlasting covenant) return Israel to His favour, and continue His plan to bless all the peoples of the earth.

Close enough.

Because covenant Israel has not existed since it's fall(when it split into two doomed enemy nations 2900 years ago), the first order of business in God's planned blessing(salvation) of all the peoples of the earth, is the resurrection of covenant Israel...to repentance.
When the assembly of those who have the spirit of "the kingdom of Israel" is large enough, the messiah will lead it to repossession of the promised land(all land between the Euphrates and the Nile). When the final trump sounds, indicating that the battle has been won, then in the twinkling of an eye, all of "Israel in spirit", will be changed into "the kingdom of Israel", resurrected from the dead, with the messiah on the throne of David.

In order to make sure that Israel will not fall away again, God will make a new everlasting covenant with resurrected Israel, which will consist entirely of God writing His laws forever on the hearts of Israel so that all will know God, and every generation of Israel will do by nature the things contained in the law, thus the everlasting(old) covenant will be forever fulfilled.

All of God's promises will have been fulfilled.
Jesus came, with the good news of the kingdom, to backslidden Jews who no longer had faith in kingdom resurrection, and he was killed because the chief priests and Pharisees feared that he would start a war with Rome, and all the Jews would end up being destroyed.
The gospel, as taught by the post Nicean official church of the Roman empire, was established to unite all the paganized factions of 4th century Christianity, under a "Universal" religion.
If there is any part of my synopsis that you do not recognize, or would like to challenge, then please, let the discussion begin...LOL

You have yet to answer the question. Where does the Bible say that we are to ignore the Church? I see no undercurrent, not even a hint of a suggestion, so you will have to enlighten me where the Bible says we are to ignore what the Bible calls the Household of God, the Pillar of Truth and the Body of Christ?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Provoker]

You have yet to answer the question. Where does the Bible say that we are to ignore the Church? I see no undercurrent, not even a hint of a suggestion, so you will have to enlighten me where the Bible says we are to ignore what the Bible calls the Household of God, the Pillar of Truth and the Body of Christ?
Hello De Maria:
The apostolic church was making "true" Jews out of nominal Jews and gentiles, and true Jews assemble for the purpose of preparing a body for the christ to lead to kingdom resurrection. The organization we know as "The Church", has little or no interest in the resurrection of the Davidic kingdom of Israel, because "the church" expects to be gone from this earth before the kingdom is resurrected on this earth.
Jesus taught us to pray for; "Thy kingdom come...on earth as it is in heaven...", but why would he teach us to pray for that if we don't even believe we will be here to see it?
The first century Romans were aware that the good news of the kingdom that Jesus was proclaiming, was actually enlarging the body of people who were committed to kingdom resurrection(The Zealots), and that was a national security risk that the Roman empire stopped when it destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 66, and drove the apostolic church underground.
In order for emperor Constantine to officially bring the apostolic church out of hiding, he had to make sure that kingdom resurrection was no longer it's driving force, hence the strategic watering down of the church via an ecumenical union with paganized factions of the church.
The term; **first ecumenical council**, does not suggest the culling out of false doctrines, but the blending of popular doctrines so as to satisfy all the factions. The fact that the conclusions of Nicea 325 were arrived at by a vote, means that the factions with the most in common carried the day.
The one doctrine that virtually all the pagan factions of the church would have had in common, and which existed long before Jesus ever came on the scene, was the doctrine of the virgin born, dying rising, man god, and since virtually all of the pagan religions of the empire were based on worship of the sun, the majority of the factions would have celebrated Dec. 25(the winter solstice), as the birthday of the sun, and most of the pagan factions would have celebrated "Sun"day(the venerable day of the sun) rather than the sabbath(7th), and all the pagan factions would probably have voted for Easter since it was the celebration and feast of Ashtoreth/Astarte, who exists by different names in virtually every pagan religion, and was commonly known as "The queen of heaven", and "The mother of God".
All the councils after the first one in 325, dealt with the doctrines and scriptures resulting from Nicea 325, but Nicea 325, was the council which made the first, and only major cut, and sealed the doctrinal fate of the church right up to the present, and Nicea 325 cannot be undone, because it has been perpetuated by the venerating of tradition it'self.
So while I would recognize the authority of the apostolic church if I could find it, I do not accept the organizations calling themselves "the church" today, as the apostolic church.
We can however, go back to the bible and study it for ourselves, without the influence of the questionable organization which calls it'self the church.
The point is that Christianity, as we know it today, is full of pagan holy days, pagan practices, and pagan beliefs, and we owe it to ourselves to form our opinions from scripture alone, rather than making scripture conform to the opinions and traditions of an organization which calls it'self "the church".
What do you think?

[slaveofone]

I've only seen this definition once:

Scripture is sufficient for doctrine.

When I first saw this definition in the CARM website, I wondered what had become of the word "alone" in the definition. Does this definition mean that the word "alone" is assumed to follow Scripture?

Or have the writers of this definition given up on the idea that Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine?

After all, this new definition doesn't exclude anything. It states that Scripture is sufficient for doctrine, but does not exclude that Tradition may be sufficient for doctrine or that the Church may be sufficient for doctrine. So what does this new definition mean? It certainly seems to be at odds with the traditional Scripture alone definition.

Traditional Scripture alone definition? Is that a contradiction in terms? :wink:

You gotta love how appropriately it begs the question... Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine. Oh, really... Where exactly in scripture does it say that? :teeth: And then you get into the whole circular argument where it's oh, but it says it in there even though it doesn't and I'm not applying a foreign Greek/Pagan philosophical system of thought to this Jewish text at all, blah blah blah. Some people just like digging themselves deeper...perhaps so they can try and duck and cover under the light which reveals truth.