Is Sola Scritura from Scripture?

[37818]

Upon what authority have you determined that the Bible includes these and only these 66 books?

That is an excellent question. The Holy Scripture as they where handed to the churches and the churches in turn handed them down. That is the short answer. The long answer would require writing a book.

At the time of Christ our 39 books were accepted. Each book of the New Testament was Holy Scripture upon being written and received as such by the churches. And the churches which handed them down. Our 66 book Bible was what was handed down to us.

[One Bad Pig]

For one: God spoke the universe into existence. Natural revelation (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 10:17-18). They do not tell us of the gospel of Christ.

Sure.

The Apostles are no longer here to follow their spoken instructions (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

Their direct descendants, however, are.

As for the speaking gifts, the word of knowledge, gifts of prophecy and the speaking in languages (translated) through which God the Holy Spirit gives/gave (1 Corinthians 12: & 14:), this an issue which Christians disagree on as to their current status (1 Corinthians 13: Revelation 1:1-3; 19:10; 22:18-19). It is regarded as a secondary issue is it not?

What is undisputable is that the Holy Spirit is still at work. Asserting that God cannot speak today would not be a secondary issue.

All the words of God are authoritative (Matthew 4:4).

Yes.

Only the written Holy Scripture [our 66 book Old and New Testament] tells us of the gospel of Christ.

The Church (the descendants of the apostles) tells us of the gospel of Christ. It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon, yet the Church managed to transmit the gospel just fine in the interim. Your assertion regarding the Old Testament is distinctly a minority one among Christendom (both in time and in numbers).

Scripture was not written to be the final authority in all matters; it was written to address specific situations. Paul does not hold up his writings as the final standard, but what he had taught in speech.

Says who?

I would think the proposition that scripture (particularly the NT) was written to address specific situations is prima faciae obvious. As for the rest:

Source: Gal 1:8-12 NKJV

⁸But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. ¹⁰ For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
¹¹ But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. ¹² For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

© Copyright Original Source

Holy Scripture [our 66 book Old and New Testament] unless it is the final authority for the Christian faith and practice - what is left is just a man made religion without foundation from God.

Unsupported assertion.

You or I [or anyone else] as interpreters of Holy Scripture are not any kind of final authority what the texts mean.

Agreed.

There are five tenets to the Christian faith which are core to it:

1. Bible alone - 2 Timothy 3:14-17 - 2 Peter 1:19, 20-21.
2. Faith alone - Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 5:1-2
3. Grace alone - Titus 3:7
4. Christ alone - Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5-6 - Matthew 28:18 Revelation 19:10.
5. Glory to God alone - 1 Corinthians 10:31 Romans 11:33-36

Which can be summarized with the following statement:
Our salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the authority of Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.

This is a summation of the Reformation, not Christianity.

And the phenomena is, those who agree on all five, also agree on all the other essentials of the Christian faith.

Why, then, are there so many denominations? Not even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!

Do you have one proof against this?

The Church existed for over 15 centuries before your list was formulated - and even the Reformers were heavily dependent on (certain teachings of) St. Augustine.

[robrecht]

That is an excellent question. The Holy Scripture as they where handed to the churches and the churches in turn handed them down. That is the short answer. The long answer would require writing a book.

At the time of Christ our 39 books were accepted. Each book of the New Testament was Holy Scripture upon being written and received as such by the churches. And the churches which handed them down. Our 66 book Bible was what was handed down to us.

You do realize that different churches have had differing canons of scripture over the years and still do to this day, right?

[37818]

Their direct descendants, however, are.

Says who?
What we have direct from God to His prophets and Apostles to the us by way of writings which are the Holy Scriptures.

What is undisputable is that the Holy Spirit is still at work.

Not at issue.

Asserting that God cannot speak today would not be a secondary issue.

That is not what I asserted. I asserted that there is a disagreement whether God does or does not today by way of the three gifts of the Holy Spirit speak to His church today, as noted. I did not assert God cannot. You say this disagreement is not a secondary issue. So then according to you all professing Christians who are cessationist are heretics.

The Church (the descendants of the apostles) tells us of the gospel of Christ. It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon, yet the Church managed to transmit the gospel just fine in the interim. Your assertion regarding the Old Testament is distinctly a minority one among Christendom (both in time and in numbers).

Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written (2 Peter 2:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I would think the proposition that scripture (particularly the NT) was written to address specific situations is prima faciae obvious. As for the rest:

Source: Gal 1:8-12 NKJV

⁸But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. ¹⁰ For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
¹¹ But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. ¹² For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

© Copyright Original Source

And you are citing is Holy Scripture to make your argument.

Unsupported assertion.

The Holy Scriptures were handed down through the churches.

This is a summation of the Reformation, not Christianity.

So then you are arguing protestants of the Reformation are not Christians then.

Why, then, are there so many [Christian] denominations?

Because of disagreements over secondary issues.

Not even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!

By making non essentials as essentials.

The Church existed for over 15 centuries before your list was formulated - and even the Reformers were heavily dependent on (certain teachings of) St. Augustine.

The church [made up of churches] Christ is building has been here 19 centuries. And those teachings come from the Holy Scriptures as noted.

[37818]

You do realize that different churches have had differing canons of scripture over the years and still do to this day, right?

Yes, some of the irregular groups disputed what was handed down.

[robrecht]

Yes, some of the irregular groups disputed what was handed down.

So, again, I ask, upon what authority have you determined that the Bible includes these and only these 66 books?

[37818]

So, again, I ask, upon what authority have you determined that the Bible includes these and only these 66 books?

Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written.

". . . knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." -- 2 Peter 1:20-21. ASV

"Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What is translated "inspired of God," as I am sure you know, literally means "God breathed."

That those writings where what were handed down by the churches. It can be argued that we ended up with the 66. But that is to question that some of the books are not the word of God and others which are the word of God were left out. Irregular "church" councils deciding canon does not make a writing the word of God. But only for them and their followers.

[robrecht]

Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written.

". . . knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." -- 2 Peter 1:20-21. ASV

"Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What is translated "inspired of God," as I am sure you know, literally means "God breathed."

The those writings where what were handed down by the churches. It can be argued that we ended up with the 66. But that is to question that some of the books are not the word of God and others which are the word of God were left out. Irregular "church" councils deciding canon does not make a writing the word of God. For only for them and their followers.

You are still avoiding the question. Who decides what writings are Scripture, and which writings are not Scripture? Who decides which churches are 'regular' and which churches are 'irregular'. Your particular opinion of what is and is not Scripture is not that of the majority of Christians--so is your view that of an 'irregular' church?

[37818]

You are still avoiding the question. Who decides what writings are Scripture, and which writings are not Scripture?

God has. Unless you are disputing God's word as God's word. Christians know God through Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life (John 17:3; 1 John 5:12).

Who decides which churches are 'regular' and which churches are 'irregular'.

Again God does.

Your particular opinion of what is and is not Scripture is not that of the majority of Christians . . .

Then if they deny God's words they are not His (John 8:47). I'm not making this up.

. . . --so is your view that of an 'irregular' church?

Irregular church is a man made church. You will recognized "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" is such a group as an example. All churches are made up of people. And not all are saved. The pastors of churches can be religious and lost just as a church member can be. God knows who are His. A Biblical church is made up of born again Christians who are Biblically baptized (immersed).

[robrecht]

God has. Unless you are disputing God's word as God's word. Christians know God through Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life (John 17:3; 1 John 5:12).

Again God does.

Then if they deny God's words they are not His (John 8:47). I'm not making this up.

Irregular church is a man made church. You will recognized "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" is such a group as an example. All churches are made up of people. And not all are saved. The pastors of churches can be religious and lost just as a church member can be. God knows who are His. A Biblical church is made up of born again Christians who are Biblically baptized (immersed).

Sure, God knows everything, but has God revealed to you or someone else that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture?

[37818]

Sure, God knows everything, but has God revealed to you or someone else that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture?

God has not given me any special revelation regarding His 66 books.

". . . For the word of God [is] alive, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . ." -- Hebrews 4:12.

". . . He that is of God heareth God's words: . . ." -- John 8:47.

The Apostle Paul wrote the Thessalonians, ". . . For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. . . ." -- 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

Receiving the word of God is how you know it is the word of God.

Jesus promised, ". . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . . " -- John 7:16.

[robrecht]

God has not given me any special revelation regarding His 66 books.

". . . For the word of God [is] alive, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . ." -- Hebrews 4:12.

". . . He that is of God heareth God's words: . . ." -- John 8:47.

The Apostle Paul wrote the Thessalonians, ". . . For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. . . ." -- 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

Receiving the word of God is how you know it is the word of God.

Jesus promised, ". . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . . " -- John 7:16.

OK, so if God has not revealed to you that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture, has he revealed it to someone else? Is it revealed in Scripture that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture? Or do you accept some extra-scriptural authority that identifies these and only these 66 books as sacred Scripture?

[Adrift]

OBP, it looks like you're overshooting a bit.

Their direct descendants, however, are.

That's obviously disputable, and there's a number of "descendants" in that chain who bore little fruit that would indicate they were even followers of Christ.

It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon

No it didn't. You of all people should be aware that the NT canon was relatively fixed early on. Evidence includes the quoting of all of the NT books in the writings of the early church fathers and the 2nd century Muratorian fragment that lists most of the books in the canon as we know it today.

I would think the proposition that scripture (particularly the NT) was written to address specific situations is prima faciae obvious.

If it was only for a specific audience, only for a specific time and pace, then it would be worthless to anyone outside of that time and place. In that regard, then, it seems best to understand scripture as multi-dimensional. On one level the New Testament directly addresses the issues and circumstances of its original audience, and on another level it's applicable to all Christians everywhere and in every time.

Why, then, are there so many denominations? Not even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!

37818 wrote "essentials of the Christian faith". There have always been, and always will be differences between Christians on secondary matters, and that's true for the Orthodox and Catholic communities as it is the Protestant ones.

I'm actually surprised by some of the things you're saying here OBP. These are arguments one usually hears skeptics making.

[Adrift]

OK, so if God has not revealed to you that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture, has he revealed it to someone else? Is it revealed in Scripture that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture? Or do you accept some extra-scriptural authority that identifies these and only these 66 books as sacred Scripture?

37818, its a little bit of a "gotcha", but the purpose of robrecht's questions is to move you into admitting that it takes an extra-biblical source to recognize that the 66 books that you accept are in fact inspired. I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that, yes, we accept these books because they were generally accepted by the early ecclesia, but that this acceptance was guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps one could even say that the reason we accept the Biblical canon has to do with the Holy Spirit in us as well, and why, for instance, we haven't been deceived by a "different kind of spirit" (as 2 Corinthians 11:4 puts it) in accepting some other Biblical canon (the Mormon canon for instance).

[robrecht]

37818, its a little bit of a "gotcha", but the purpose of robrecht's questions is to move you into admitting that it takes an extra-biblical source to recognize that the 66 books that you accept are in fact inspired. I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that, yes, we accept these books because they were generally accepted by the early ecclesia, but that this acceptance was guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps one could even say that the reason we accept the Biblical canon has to do with the Holy Spirit in us as well, and why, for instance, we haven't been deceived by a "different kind of spirit" (as 2 Corinthians 11:4 puts it) in accepting some other Biblical canon (the Mormon canon for instance).

Why do you consider this a little bit of a "gotcha"? I think it is an entirely fair and straightforward question.