Sola Scriptura from and Orthodox perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks that way for how they separate church traditions from scripture when church traditions can only come from scripture as taught plainly from scripture.
They seem to look at Early Church Fathers as also having form of inspired theology and teachings!
 
They seem to look at Early Church Fathers as also having form of inspired theology and teachings!
They did so without confirming the word taught by the early church fathers with Jesus Christ as their personal Good Shepherd to confirm the word.
 
The problem with the Sola’s is that they are not biblical. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Scripture itself is the only authority. Not even one. But what does the Scriptures say about the Scriptures themselves? All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction and righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3-17). God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. So, the bible does say that the Scriptures are given by divine inspiration. It does say that they are profitable, they are useful for teaching and correction and without them we are not equipped and not furnished to do good works. But it does not say Scripture alone anywhere. So, I would say it fails its own test.
That's how I look at the issue. If someone approaches the issue in an unbiased, logical way, a good measure of its correctness is whether the Bible says that the Bible alone is the only authority. And the Bible doesn't say that, so it means that the dogma is false.

First, start with the definition of the Sola Scriptura Dogma. Luther and the Lutheran formulas like the Book of Concord repeatedly define it as meaning that the Bible alone is the only authority. Luther repeatedly said in this context that he aimed to read and understand the Bible by itself, not by commentaries. For example, the Lutheran foundational Book of Concord says:
  • "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…"
Many Protestants actually don't believe themselves that the Bible alone is the only authority, so they don't want to interpret Sola Scriptura to mean this. But that is how Luther defined the term, and all the Protestant institutions/churches that formally use this term get it from Luther. But if they want to define Sola Scriptura differently, as if authorities include the Bible plus the Holy Spirit or the Bible plus the bishops whom the apostles appointed, then they need to quote from other foundational Protestant definitions of "Sola Scriptura".

But since we are dealing with a foundational "dogma" or axiom of Protestantism of the Lutheran legacy, I think that you are not going to get many Protestants to directly admit that the dogma is false. The result is not just that the Bible is "infallible" for them, but that "Sola Scriptura" and the other "Solas" are also practically infallible for them.

They would not say "Luther's 5 Solas are infallible," but they treat the 5 Solas like they are infallible, because the 5 Solas are foundational and axiomatic for Protestantism. This explains why even if you can show objectively, logically, and reasonably that the dogma is false because the Bible never calls itself the "only" authority, they still will insist that it is. When a doctrine is openly demonstrated to be false and yet its adherents insist on its truth, the implication is that its adherents are treating it as "infallible," as something that cannot be wrong, even if it actually is.

To give a practical illustration, suppose that you talked with a dogmatic Protestant friend who is convinced that "Sola Scriptura" just means that the Bible is the "highest" or only "infallible" authority, that the Bible is not the "only" authority per se, and that there are other "authorities" on religion. You might both notice that the New Testament says that the apostles appointed "overseers"/"episkopos" over the faithful, and that "overseers"/"supervisors" are authorities.

Although you and your friend might both agree that the apostles' "overseers" are "authorities," you will probably have a hard time getting him to agree that Luther's "Sola Scriptura" doctrine was wrong because the teaching is so foundational. You are probably going to have a hard time convincing him that Luther taught that the Bible alone is the only authority, and even if you provide enough relevant quotes, he is still probably not going to openly admit that Luther was wrong because of how foundational the 5 Solas are.

There is something nice and refreshing about Luther's simplicity, because it's nice to think that we can just look at the Bible to solve questions, but unfortunately this is not always the case in reality. The Bible does not address plenty of religious issues in much clear detail, or perhaps even at all, depending on the issue.

On very many issues, Protestants are really just stuck extrapolating from what the Bible says on one topic and then theorizing what this would imply on another topic. One very common Protestant position was that drinking alcohol is bad. But the Bible never actually says this. The Bible says that God made wine to make men merry, that you shouldn't harm yourself, and Paul recommends to another Christian that he drink wine for his health. So to answer how the Bible supposedly "says" about alcohol being bad, anti-alcohol Protestants are forced to cobbling together tangential verses (like where the Bible says that drunkenness is bad, as opposed to all drinking wine being bad), and to rationalize away the places where the Bible says that drinking wine is good.

To someone who realizes that "Sola Scriptura" is bunk, the way that Protestants use the Bible Alone method to reach a conclusion that is the opposite of what the Bible writers thought (eg. they actually thought that moderate alcohol use was fine) illustrates the inherent flaw of arbitrariness in the Sola Scriptura doctrine.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the Sola’s is that they are not biblical. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Scripture itself is the only authority. Not even one. But what does the Scriptures say about the Scriptures themselves? All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction and righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3-17). God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. So, the bible does say that the Scriptures are given by divine inspiration. It does say that they are profitable, they are useful for teaching and correction and without them we are not equipped and not furnished to do good works. But it does not say Scripture alone anywhere. So, I would say it fails its own test.
You seem to acknowledge correction by scripture, and yet fail to acknowledge that is how any proclaimed church tradition can either be confirmed or corrected by scripture. So how does that not lead to the inevitable truth that it is by scripture alone is how we prove or reprove anything?

Scripture cannot go against scripture and so if a church tradition, no matter how old it is, has scripture reproving it, and yet the church claimed that tradition from scripture, it is a sure thing that they are misapplying scripture from which they claim tradition from.
 
You seem to acknowledge correction by scripture, and yet fail to acknowledge that is how any proclaimed church tradition can either be confirmed or corrected by scripture. So how does that not lead to the inevitable truth that it is by scripture alone is how we prove or reprove anything?

Scripture cannot go against scripture and so if a church tradition, no matter how old it is, has scripture reproving it, and yet the church claimed that tradition from scripture, it is a sure thing that they are misapplying scripture from which they claim tradition from.
Any and all traditions and teachings must bed found in the scriptures themselves, not created to exist along side them as equally valid!
 
You seem to acknowledge correction by scripture, and yet fail to acknowledge that is how any proclaimed church tradition can either be confirmed or corrected by scripture. So how does that not lead to the inevitable truth that it is by scripture alone is how we prove or reprove anything?
Even if scripture confirms or corrects any tradition, this does not mean that scripture ALONE is the ONLY way to confirm or correct any tradition.

This is because if we use one thing to confirm everything, its universal usage does not necessarily EXCLUDE the use of other things.

Even if the the Bible is the HIGHEST authority on everything, it does not mean that it is the ONLY authority on everything.

Example:
The Bible's teaching that circumcision of Israelite babies brought babies into covenant with God confirmed the Christian teaching of infant baptism for John Calvin. But this does not necessarily entail that the Bible is the ONLY confirmation of infant baptism. The fact that all our earliest writings on the topic, from the 2nd century and later, condone infant baptism ALSO confirms infant baptism.

The Bible being the highest authority does not mean that it is the only authority.

We can argue about this for the next 1000 pages on this thread and I highly doubt that Protestants are going to say, "Wow, you are right, Sola Scriptura is illogical and unBiblical." This is because regardless of "Sola Scriptura's" correctness or incorrectness, and despite Protestantism rejecting infallible "traditions," Protestantism ironically de facto treats this Protestant tradition as an infallible dogma.

In that case, trying to debunk Sola Scriptura dogmatism is like beating my head against the wall or an excercise in futility. 1000 pages later we are still going to get Protestants saying that Sola Scriptura just means that the Bible is the "highest" authority next to other authorities, or that if you use the Bible as the measuring stick for everything, then somehow it's impossible to ALSO use anything else (like the Holy Spirit or common sense or your conscience or the authority of the same exact persons whom the apostles appointed as AUTHORITIES over Christians) as a measuring stick TOO.
 
Even if scripture confirms or corrects any tradition, this does not mean that scripture ALONE is the ONLY way to confirm or correct any tradition.

This is because if we use one thing to confirm everything, its universal usage does not necessarily EXCLUDE the use of other things.

Even if the the Bible is the HIGHEST authority on everything, it does not mean that it is the ONLY authority on everything.

Example:
The Bible's teaching that circumcision of Israelite babies brought babies into covenant with God confirmed the Christian teaching of infant baptism for John Calvin. But this does not necessarily entail that the Bible is the ONLY confirmation of infant baptism. The fact that all our earliest writings on the topic, from the 2nd century and later, condone infant baptism ALSO confirms infant baptism.

The Bible being the highest authority does not mean that it is the only authority.

We can argue about this for the next 1000 pages on this thread and I highly doubt that Protestants are going to say, "Wow, you are right, Sola Scriptura is illogical and unBiblical." This is because regardless of "Sola Scriptura's" correctness or incorrectness, and despite Protestantism rejecting infallible "traditions," Protestantism ironically de facto treats this Protestant tradition as an infallible dogma.

In that case, trying to debunk Sola Scriptura dogmatism is like beating my head against the wall or an excercise in futility. 1000 pages later we are still going to get Protestants saying that Sola Scriptura just means that the Bible is the "highest" authority next to other authorities, or that if you use the Bible as the measuring stick for everything, then somehow it's impossible to ALSO use anything else (like the Holy Spirit or common sense or your conscience or the authority of the same exact persons whom the apostles appointed as AUTHORITIES over Christians) as a measuring stick TOO.
Paul warned about false apostles.

So how can we prove or disprove a person as a false apostle? By the scripture. If any apostle is teaching something not found and even opposing any truth in scripture even when quoting other scripture, then he either be corrected by scripture, and if unrepentant, has to be considered a false apostle because of it & excommunicated from fellowship until he does repent.. if he ever does.
 
Paul warned about false apostles.

So how can we prove or disprove a person as a false apostle? By the scripture. If any apostle is teaching something not found and even opposing any truth in scripture even when quoting other scripture, then he either be corrected by scripture, and if unrepentant, has to be considered a false apostle because of it & excommunicated from fellowship until he does repent.. if he ever does.
Any and all teaching and doctrine must be confirmed and approved by the scriptures only!
 
Looks that way for how they separate church traditions from scripture when church traditions can only come from scripture as taught plainly from scripture.
Greetings @Hark

I hope your week has been well. It seems to me, what separates us Christians from one another is how we interpret the Scriptures. My question would be this, using the Bible and the Bible alone, where does the Bible teach the Bible alone?

They seem to look at Early Church Fathers as also having form of inspired theology and teachings!
We look to the Early Church Fathers, yes, but not as if they were inspired as the Old Testament prophets were or the New Testament writers.
 
Paul warned about false apostles.

So how can we prove or disprove a person as a false apostle? By the scripture. If any apostle is teaching something not found and even opposing any truth in scripture even when quoting other scripture, then he either be corrected by scripture, and if unrepentant, has to be considered a false apostle because of it & excommunicated from fellowship until he does repent.. if he ever does.
You aren't really getting the point of what I said.
Suppose that a person like Paul is proved as a "true" apostle, appointed by Christ and confirmed by the scriptures.
Then that person can be an "authority". For example, Paul told the Corinthians that they need to heal up their differences instead of breaking into factions. So Paul was an authority on whether they should reconcile.

You can reply that Paul was fallible. OK. Authorities can be fallible.

You can reply that Paul's authority was dependent on being Biblically confirmed. OK. The Bible can be an authority that confirms that something is an authority too. The Bible says that the apostles appointed "overseers" over Christian churches. OK, that means that those people were authorities over those churches. The Bible confirmed that they were authorities.
 
Here is an example from history. In his book, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, Anglican writer Walter Hook describes how Cranmer tried to get theological figures like the Lutherans to support Henry VIII's divorce attempts. Henry VIII's supporters wanted to claim that the marriage was illegally contracted, so that Henry VIII had the right to separate.
In Germany the Lutherans were reported by Cook, the king's agent, to be "utterly against his highness in the cause;" and honest old Luther gave utterance to the feeling which lurked in the soul of every true-hearted gentleman not blinded by party zeal: "Whether the marriage were at first legal or illegal," he declared that "separation, after so many years of cohabitation, would be an enormity greater than any marriage could have been..."

Cranmer had to report of the German princes, that they could not be moved to take an interest in the divorce question. ... To them Luther was an authority; and among the most bitter opponents of Luther, King Henry had been distinguished, and he would not recant.

SOURCE: Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, Walter Hook, Page 447
The Bible speaks broadly against divorce, but the Bible doesn't speak specifically about Henry VIII's divorce or specifically about separations from potentially illegally-contracted marriages in particular.

So here, Luther makes a judgment about Henry's divorce being wrong, and Luther judges that many years of cohabitation make separation wrong even if the marriage was at first illegal.

And the author concludes that Luther is an "authority" for the Lutheran princes on the topic.
 
Greetings @Hark

I hope your week has been well. It seems to me, what separates us Christians from one another is how we interpret the Scriptures. My question would be this, using the Bible and the Bible alone, where does the Bible teach the Bible alone?


We look to the Early Church Fathers, yes, but not as if they were inspired as the Old Testament prophets were or the New Testament writers.
Greetings @ziapueblo :)

Maybe it would be best to address this issue with the Lord's help, where in scripture did it say for us to do all those things other than by the scripture?

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And 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. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

How do you apply verse 17 to mean? Paul testifies to nothing else for how the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly "furnished" unto all good works? That reads to me scripture alone is all we need to be prefect and "thoroughly furnished" unto all good works.
 
You aren't really getting the point of what I said.
Sorry. May God help me.
Suppose that a person like Paul is proved as a "true" apostle, appointed by Christ and confirmed by the scriptures.
Then that person can be an "authority". For example, Paul told the Corinthians that they need to heal up their differences instead of breaking into factions. So Paul was an authority on whether they should reconcile.
He did that by scripture, I am sure.
You can reply that Paul was fallible. OK. Authorities can be fallible.
Peter was. Paul had to with stand him face to face for Peter was to be blamed for the offense at one time.

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Then Paul went on to correct him by scripture regarding the new reality in Christ.
You can reply that Paul's authority was dependent on being Biblically confirmed. OK. The Bible can be an authority that confirms that something is an authority too.
I agree.
The Bible says that the apostles appointed "overseers" over Christian churches. OK, that means that those people were authorities over those churches. The Bible confirmed that they were authorities.
Only when submissive to the Word of God, Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church as the final authority, thus the scripture alone.

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

But when they refuse correction by the word of God...

1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

So we can see how scripture alone is key.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And 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. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

How do you apply verse 17 to mean? Paul testifies to nothing else for how the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly "furnished" unto all good works? That reads to me scripture alone is all we need to be prefect and "thoroughly furnished" unto all good works.
 
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And 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. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

How do you apply verse 17 to mean? Paul testifies to nothing else for how the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly "furnished" unto all good works? That reads to me scripture alone is all we need to be prefect and "thoroughly furnished" unto all good works.
Yes, 2 Timothy 3:13-17 praises the scriptures that Timothy studied as a child and is often used as a proof text for sola scriptura.

The reality is that it actually refutes sola scriptura. Here are three examples of how that is true:

  1. The word corresponding to "sufficient" does not appear in the Greek text. Instead it is affirming that scripture is able to make you wise for salvation. https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-15.htm https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_timothy/3-15.htm
  2. The scriptures that Paul is referring to are the Greek Old Testament, which includes books that are absent from the modern Hebrew and Protestant canon. Timothy came from a Greek-speaking city and clearly spoke Greek. There is no evidence that he understood Hebrew, and there was no New Testament when Timothy was a child.
  3. If you still accept that the scriptures that Timothy studied as a child are sufficient, then logically you should delete the entire New Testament from the bible. The cross and the resurrection would be meaningless extrabiblical tradition under that scenario.
 
Yes, 2 Timothy 3:13-17 praises the scriptures that Timothy studied as a child and is often used as a proof text for sola scriptura.

The reality is that it actually refutes sola scriptura. Here are three examples of how that is true:

  1. The word corresponding to "sufficient" does not appear in the Greek text. Instead it is affirming that scripture is able to make you wise for salvation. https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-15.htm https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_timothy/3-15.htm
I do not see the word sufficient at that web link for you to associate that with thoroughly furnished if that was what you had meant to convey. Thoroughly furnished to me means that the man of God is fully equipped by scripture alone. Otherwise, it would cite something else then to be running along with scripture but there isn't anything that would do that.
  1. The scriptures that Paul is referring to are the Greek Old Testament, which includes books that are absent from the modern Hebrew and Protestant canon. Timothy came from a Greek-speaking city and clearly spoke Greek. There is no evidence that he understood Hebrew, and there was no New Testament when Timothy was a child.
  2. If you still accept that the scriptures that Timothy studied as a child are sufficient, then logically you should delete the entire New Testament from the bible. The cross and the resurrection would be meaningless extrabiblical tradition under that scenario.
Peter considered Paul's epistles as scripture FYI.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Letters or epistles began in the very early churches.

Acts 15:So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

What was written to one church, was to be read to other churches.

Colossians 4:16And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

The epistles were to be read unto all churches & brethren.

1 Thessalonians 5:27I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

Each believer is to personally take heed to what was written in the epistles.


2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle...... 3And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.:

Evidence of copying scripture and having books can be seen here.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

So just because they date the earliest codex or collection of books of the Bible, that does not mean they did not have them back then for early churches to grow from; the Old Testament as well as the New Testament & the four gospels that were considered scripture.
 
6 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Agreed, but does this verse teach the Scriptures alone?

Verse 10 supplies the context, "Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my steadfastness . . . "

St. Pul is writing to St. Timothy, whom we are first introduced to in Acts 16, the son of a Jewish woman who is a believer (what Christians are often referred to in various places in the NT). Of course his dad was a Greek (tree stump worshiper, gentile, pagan). This is a pastoral letter and one of Paul's final epistles. He is nearing the end of his life and reminding Timothy, a bishop in Ephesus, and reminding him of what he had learned and who he had learned it from, St. Paul himself, what he preached, how he lived his life. St. Paul makes no mention to Timothy about what he wrote.

St. Timothy is also reminded of were and how he learned the faith from his childhood from his Jewish mother. What sources did she use to teach him? The Scriptures of Israel, the OT, in particular, the Torah. In 2 Timothy chapter 1 we read a little more about Timothy. In verse 4, the faith first dwelt in his grandmother, then his mother and finally him. Paul is telling Timothy to hold fast to what he has learned from the Scriptures known since childhood. In all of Paul's writings, Scriptures, refer to the OT. It is not until the middle of the third century that the early Christians begin to refer to the NT as Scripture. During the time of Saint Paul and the early Christians there was not a written New Testament. The final book of the New Testament in not written until the end of the first century and it is not for two more centuries that we have some sort of list or collection of the NT. These first lists are the formation of the lectionary. The Liturgy forms the canon of Scripture.
 
Agreed, but does this verse teach the Scriptures alone?

Verse 10 supplies the context, "Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my steadfastness . . . "

St. Pul is writing to St. Timothy, whom we are first introduced to in Acts 16, the son of a Jewish woman who is a believer (what Christians are often referred to in various places in the NT). Of course his dad was a Greek (tree stump worshiper, gentile, pagan). This is a pastoral letter and one of Paul's final epistles. He is nearing the end of his life and reminding Timothy, a bishop in Ephesus, and reminding him of what he had learned and who he had learned it from, St. Paul himself, what he preached, how he lived his life. St. Paul makes no mention to Timothy about what he wrote.
Do reconsider that.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.


St. Timothy is also reminded of were and how he learned the faith from his childhood from his Jewish mother. What sources did she use to teach him? The Scriptures of Israel, the OT, in particular, the Torah. In 2 Timothy chapter 1 we read a little more about Timothy. In verse 4, the faith first dwelt in his grandmother, then his mother and finally him. Paul is telling Timothy to hold fast to what he has learned from the Scriptures known since childhood. In all of Paul's writings, Scriptures, refer to the OT. It is not until the middle of the third century that the early Christians begin to refer to the NT as Scripture. During the time of Saint Paul and the early Christians there was not a written New Testament. The final book of the New Testament in not written until the end of the first century and it is not for two more centuries that we have some sort of list or collection of the NT. These first lists are the formation of the lectionary. The Liturgy forms the canon of Scripture.
I would say that it is an oversight to limit the availability of scripture to just the New Testament when in the Book of Acts, we see letters/epistles being written.

Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia..... So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

1 Corinthians 5:9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

2 Corinthians 7:8For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.

That was about not having excommunicated the sinning brother and then when the church did but the brother repented, they let him back in.

Were all churches instructed with access to Paul's epistles? Concerning the collection for the saints, all churches were to be instructed.

1 Corinthians 16:1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

More evidence that the N.T. was to be shared to all churches AND unto all the brethren..

Colossians 4:17And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:7I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

Even Peter testified that Paul's writings were on par with the rest of scripture as not running against scripture whereas some that err do wrest the scripture to their own destruction;

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Just because they have carbon dated the earliest manuscripts, it does not mean that was when they had started writing & copying scripture. Indeed, the four gospels had to be written down for them to be copied and used repeatedly that there can be no earliest manuscripts during the disciples days. They had books and parchments to copy and share epistles, the four gospels, and even the Old Testament so the churches can have them.

Due to his failing eyesight, Paul had someone write for him as Paul dictated.

Romans 16:22I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

So God was able to raise up the N.T. with the O.T. for to be read in all churches to every believer in the very early church days.

Paul even testified indirectly about the apostle John for the Book of Revelations..


2 Corinthians 12:1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

So there is more than enough evidence that the Bible was collected, both N.T. as well as the O.T. by the churches to read to the churches & all the brethren in Timothy's days.
 
Do reconsider that.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
Are these the NT books? It's not like the different Churches Paul established had various copies of his letters, especially in what we have now. More than likely, the books saint Paul refers to are the Old Testament Scriptures.

I would say that it is an oversight to limit the availability of scripture to just the New Testament when in the Book of Acts, we see letters/epistles being written.
Of course letters and epistles are being written but none of these verses indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient. You used 2 Timothy 3:16 as a proof text, and the Scriptures which St. Paul refers to are the OT Scriptures. Again, St. Paul himself and the NT writers, when referring to the Scriptures, they mean the OT. So if this verse proves the Bible alone, it proves OT alone.

And as we have discussed earlier, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." The Traditions taught by the Apostles come not only in the written form, but also in what was passed down orally. This oral Tradition is still being taught to the faithful today in the Divine Liturgy, the Creed, the Councils.
 
Are these the NT books? It's not like the different Churches Paul established had various copies of his letters, especially in what we have now. More than likely, the books saint Paul refers to are the Old Testament Scriptures.


Of course letters and epistles are being written but none of these verses indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient. You used 2 Timothy 3:16 as a proof text, and the Scriptures which St. Paul refers to are the OT Scriptures. Again, St. Paul himself and the NT writers, when referring to the Scriptures, they mean the OT. So if this verse proves the Bible alone, it proves OT alone.

And as we have discussed earlier, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." The Traditions taught by the Apostles come not only in the written form, but also in what was passed down orally. This oral Tradition is still being taught to the faithful today in the Divine Liturgy, the Creed, the Councils.
Yes, good points.

Here is another example where a literal reading from the New Testament would imply that only a portion of the Old Testament is required for scriptures. It comes from the story of the rich man and Lazarus:
". . . ‘Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torments.’ And Abraham said to him: ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’
So he said: ‘No, father Abraham. But if someone were to go to them from the dead, they would repent.’
But he said to him: ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even if someone has resurrected from the dead.’ ”
Luke 16:27-33

Should Christians delete the entire New Testament and large portion of the Old Testament to leave only the Law and Prophets?
 
Why do we believe in God, the most Holy Trinity, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because of a verse written in Scripture? Orthodox Christians believe these things because of the witness of the early Church.

And where do we find "the witness of the earth Church"?
In SCRIPTURE.

I have been curious about forum members views on Sola Scriptura. From my understanding, Sola Scriptura is that the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc. No other sources than Scripture.

Nope.
Sola Scriptura doesn't teach that the Bible is the "only source of truth".
It teaches that it is the only ultimate infallible authority of truth.

We Orthodox, of course, do not believe that the Bible and the Bible alone is sufficient.

Then what did the early church omit from the Bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top