Is Sola Scritura from Scripture?

[robrecht]

As I had already explained, those 66 books that are in our Bible were handed down as Holy Scripture.

And Jesus, as I also pointed out, contended by being willing to do God's will, God's teaching is known (John 7:16). While Jesus was speaking of His words, this truth applies to all of God's word (John 8:47).

Not at all. Only that that God's written word is the sure word of God (2 Peter 1:19-21) and completely authoritative (2 Timothy 3:14-17). Now because not all of those 66 books are cross referenced and quoted in Holy Scripture does not mean they are not God's word. And just because non-Holy Scripture is quoted in Holy Scripture does not make such documents the word of God too.

No. Not as a word of God. If that is what you are asking.

Again, those 66 books are what were handed down as Holy Scripture by the churches. And they have withstood a test of time as well.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you are understanding my question. Why do you accept the Protestant revision of the canon of only 66 books in the Bible and not the older canons of Scripture with more books of the Bible in the Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental churches? What are your reasons for rejecting some books of the Bible that the majority of Christians accept as handed down by the church as Sacred Scripture?

[37818]

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you are understanding my question. Why do you accept the Protestant revision of the canon of only 66 books in the Bible and not the older canons of Scripture with more books of the Bible in the Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental churches? What are your reasons for rejecting some books of the Bible that the majority of Christians accept as handed down by the church as Sacred Scripture?

Those additional books were never part of the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. 1 Maccabees is a book of history,not Holy Scripture - tells us the story of Hanukkah - which Jews to this day continue to observe.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church of Rome did not accept them, except as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. As a matter of history 1546 at the Council of Trent.

[Adam]

Wow, something that 37818 said that is almost verifiable as a half-truth.
Yes, it is correct that the Roman Catholic Church finally got around in 1546 to Ecumenical Council (of Trent) authoritative infallible declaration of the set of 73 books of the Bible. They basically went with the Bible they had used for over a thousand years, the Latin Vulgate based mostly on the Greek Septuagint. As the Roman Catholics outnumber all combined Protestants by hundreds of millions, it would seem 73 it is. Was this a reaction to Protestantism? Most likely "Yes", but only in the sense that the Roman Church felt compelled to definitively rule what books were inspired and inerrant. They dogmatized Protestant bibliolatry, one of the reasons I left Roman Catholicism in 1992.

Not that simple, of course. There are yet other books that the Council of Trent rejected from inclusion. However, by 1546 the Anglican Church had already gone its own way and included several extra books (beyond the 73) as did the Eastern Orthodox who had split off in 1054. Not to mention that the Oriental Orthodox (and especially the Ethiopians) had a yet-larger canon.

Plus there is the argument that even 66 books is too many. Martin Luther rejected Esther and the Epistle of James. Higher critics largely dismiss II Peter and Jude and find no proof (the books being so small) for II John and III John. And does Judges belong in the Bible with so much untoward incidents? Genesis 1 to 11 might be only myths. And who reads Leviticus?

[Obsidian]

`

He disagrees with the Nicene Creed; he doesn't think it, for example, should be authoritative (and I wager that he would still think it should not be authoritative even if he agreed with it, because it's not scripture).

If he disagrees with it, I'm guessing it's because he thinks it contradicts the Bible -- which you admitted councils are not allowed to do. I personally think the "begotten" language is stupid and probably not what the biblical writers meant by the term.

Christians are not under the law.

I've found this to be an excuse that lots of Christians make for "chang[ing] times and laws" and sinning in general.

[robrecht]

Those additional books were never part of the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. 1 Maccabees is a book of history,not Holy Scripture - tells us the story of Hanukkah - which Jews to this day continue to observe.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church of Rome did not accept them, except as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. As a matter of history 1546 at the Council of Trent.

The Catholics did not add books in reaction to the Protestants, but they did define the canon in reaction to the Reformers excluding books that had previously been accepted as scripture. The books the Catholics kept had previously been part of the bible handed down as scripture. Otherwise, how would you explain the Orthodox and Oriental churches also having all or some of these books and additional ones as well? The New Testament books were not written in Hebrew; why should that be a criterion of what books are considered inspired or canonical? Regardless of which books you choose or which church authority you accept as correctly defining which books are inspired or canonical, do you see that you are accepting a decision of some group of men (not God) as to which books are inspired and canonical?

[Obsidian]

Do you seriously believe that the Apocrypha is infallible?

[robrecht]

Do you seriously believe that the Apocrypha is infallible?

No. Nor do I believe the rest of scripture is inerrant or infallible.

[37818]

The Catholics did not add books in reaction to the Protestants, but they did define the canon in reaction to the Reformers excluding books that had previously been accepted as scripture. The books the Catholics kept had previously been part of the bible handed down as scripture. Otherwise, how would you explain the Orthodox and Oriental churches also having all or some of these books and additional ones as well? The New Testament books were not written in Hebrew; why should that be a criterion of what books are considered inspired or canonical? Regardless of which books you choose or which church authority you accept as correctly defining which books are inspired or canonical, do you see that you are accepting a decision of some group of men (not God) as to which books are inspired and canonical?

The 66 books of the Bible were in fact handed down. Far as I know, all the "canons" that were made, having additional books, without exception included those very 66 books.

No. Nor do I believe the rest of scripture is inerrant or infallible.

What is not inerrant and infallible is not God's word.

[robrecht]

The 66 books of the Bible were in fact handed down. Far as I know, all the "canons" that were made, having additional books, without exception included those very 66 books.

What is not inerrant and infallible is not God's word.

But what is your rationale for excluding some books that were also handed down? Who makes the decision for you that those books, which had also been handed down by the churches, are not God's inerrant and infallible word?

[37818]

But what is your rationale for excluding some books that were also handed down? Who makes the decision for you that those books, which had also been handed down by the churches, are not God's inerrant and infallible word?

When I became a Christian, I was totally ignorant of any of this. I was lead to Christ through a "baptist" tradition. I was lead to Christ with verses from the book of Romans and one verse from the book of Revelation. My Bible that I had was a protestant Bible, which does not include those books. The reason I accepted Christ as my Savior was on account of grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone - though at the time I did not understand these things as yet. What I did understand, was I could know without a doubt that when I die I would be with the Lord in Heaven.

The question of leaving this faith? By it I know God. I can no more deny I know Him than you being here on Tweb.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

And you can be a bot for all I know.

Bottom line, I have no reasons to accept those "second" canon books.

[robrecht]

When I became a Christian, I was totally ignorant of any of this. I was lead to Christ through a "baptist" tradition. I was lead to Christ with verses from the book of Romans and one verse from the book of Revelation. My Bible that I had was a protestant Bible, which does not include those books. The reason I accepted Christ as my Savior was on account of grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone - though at the time I did not understand these things as yet. What I did understand, was I could know without a doubt that when I die I would be with the Lord in Heaven.

The question of leaving this faith? By it I know God. I can no more deny I know Him than you being here on Tweb.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

And you can be a bot for all I know.

Bottom line, I have no reasons to accept those "second" canon books.

That's about as good a reason as any, I suppose.

[GoBahnsen]

I am going to give you three answers, they are not exhaustive.

1) The term "Sola Scritura" like the term "Trinity" is not to be found in Holy Scripture. But these teachings are found in the written word of God.

2) Without the Holy Scripture there is no Christianity.

3) The Apostle Peter cited that the word of God was given verbally. And argued that he and the Apostles were not following fables. And that the written (Scripture) was the sure word of God. {2 Peter 1:16-21.}

Sola Scriptura was the Reformed stance against the non-biblical traditions of the Roman Church. And the false idea that the Pope or the church could invent new practices or beliefs to impose upon the people of God. Much like the Pharisees had done. Christ was a Sola Scriptura example to us.

His response was "it is written." Of course, He being God Himself, did indulge in also saying "but I say unto you." He can do that, not the church of Rome or any other church.

[Adam]

Totally circular. I guess this is Presuppositionalism at its worst.
On the other hand, this post can be interpreted as defining "sola scriptura" as Jesus's own words, a canon consisting of the Red Letter Bible. Which of course is heretical.

As I recall from the old TWeb, GoBahnson was a strict Calvinist. If so nothing he said here indicates that theology.

[GoBahnsen]

Totally circular. I guess this is Presuppositionalism at its worst.
On the other hand, this post can be interpreted as defining "sola scriptura" as Jesus's own words, a canon consisting of the Red Letter Bible. Which of course is heretical.

As I recall from the old TWeb, GoBahnson was a strict Calvinist. If so nothing he said here indicates that theology.

Good. I like Calvin. But I don't want to be a Calvinist. I never got my head wrapped around presuppositionalism enough to be any good at arguing from it. So I would be presup at it's worst.

I certainly wouldn't advocate a Red Letter only bible. I love all 66 books.

[Adam]

Do you seriously believe that the Apocrypha is infallible?

I almost said, "As much as he rest of the Old Testament (Tanach)", but in point of fact--
Roman Catholics themselves implicitly downgrade our Apocrypha by classifying the seven as "deutero-canonical" (secondary canon)
And
By never naming their churches after the Maccabean heroes nor even "St. Judith", "St. Tobit" and certainly not "St. Sirach"! Robrecht, have you heard of such? I don't even know of a "Wisdom Church". (On the other hand, how many Catholic (or Protestant) churches are named after any Patriarchs nor the prophets Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or certainly not "Zechariah"--ever heard of a St. Zeke's, even in Dixie?.)