Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Does the bible teach Sola Scriptura? (informal Debate : Hapax vs. Projecthouse)
I have invited Projecthouse a fellow I met on facebook, to engage in a very informal debate (or discussion if you will) on Does the bible teach Sola Scriptura? He will be taking the affirmative and I will be taking the negative. I do not consider myself an expert in debating, but love the interchange. I hope something comes of this. Our debate will take place in the comments section. As I said, it is very informal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe the Bible alone is sufficient for practical and spiritual living as it pertains to Christianity. As Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:13, " Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture,to exhortation and teaching," I encourage others to do so as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm persuaded to employ the same tool that Christ used when being tested by the adversary in Matthew 4 & Luke 4 respectively. Christ's sole response to Satan was "it is written." Since Christ is the "Living Word," it is apparent that knowledge of Him should come from the "Written Word."
In all fairness I would not be able to agree or disagree with this explanation until I have some clarity on it.
DeleteHow would a person, wishing to live by your principle, apply that principle? To elaborate on my question, you said scripture is sufficient for practical and spiritual living as it pertains to Christianity.
What constitutes practical living? What constitutes spiritual living? and what is the difference?
And when you say scripture is sufficient, do you mean that it provides all the doctrines that one must believe? Or do you mean it also teaches you how to use scripture?
I believe the Bible alone is sufficient for practical and spiritual living as it pertains to Christianity.
Delete======
As I said before, without clarification, I cannot really respond to this. So I won't.
======
As Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:13, " Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture,to exhortation and teaching," I encourage others to do so as well.
AND
I'm persuaded to employ the same tool that Christ used when being tested by the adversary in Matthew 4 & Luke 4 respectively. Christ's sole response to Satan was "it is written." Since Christ is the "Living Word," it is apparent that knowledge of Him should come from the "Written Word."
======
I don't believe it is enough for you to demonstrate that scripture was employed as part of the Church's ministry. You would need to go further and demonstrate that scripture was all that was needed during this time. How could it be when the new testament was in the process of being written? Some protestants, such as James White, will argue that sola scriptura was invalid during the writing of scripture.
In reference to James White's view I don't believe that answer actually solves the problem. Scripture was in the process of being written since the time of Genesis. So it would logically follow that sola scriptura was never practiced since the writing of Genesis until after the death of the last apostle. That would mean no biblical examples could be employed to demonstrate the practice of sola scriptura.
You really only have one of two possibilities, either scripture was sufficient and that did not eliminate the need for another infallible authority, or scripture was never sufficient during when it was being written. But if this latter point is true, wouldn't that make the sufficiency of scripture an extra-biblical doctrine?
We also find in 1 Corinthians 4:6 the admonishment of learning "not to exceed what is written."
ReplyDeleteI think I will reply to this point later after you have clarified your initial definition. Feel free to change this point if you feel that after attempting to explain your definition, you think this point is irrelevant.
DeleteI am not sure that you will be back to clarify your definition, so I am going to reply to what I have from you.
DeleteThe first question to ask is what do you understand "not to exceed what is written" to mean? Do you think it means we are not to contradict scripture? Or do not ignore scripture? If that is the case then I would agree with you. However does it mean that we are not to hold to any doctrines which are not written down? If the latter, then I think you have a dilemma for yourself. Much of what was being taught to the christians was still in oral form. By default christians would have to hold to doctrine that was not written.
And I think if Paul were to be commanding the Christians such then he would be actually contradicting himself since in 2 Thess. 2:5 he writes "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. ". If 1 Cor. 4:6 means we are not to hold to any doctrines not written down, then Paul would in effect be contradicting himself by telling us to hold also to the ones he had not written down. If an interpretation forces the text to contradict, then there is a problem with the interpretation.