A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[JonathanKinsman]

No, I have assurance through faith that Church inerrantly discerned which books belonged in the Bible and which does not? Do you have have infallible knowledge of this?

So why did Protestants change the canon and follow the Jewish Jamnian canon based upon changes made to the Septuagint? You call it the ‘textus receptus’ (not the bad Greek manuscript that Erasmus gave the Jacobean committee in the 1600s),

And what Church did that exactly? Was it done during Pope Damasus’ reign in the 4th century? Or do you have proof that a bound collection (biblia) of books was being utilized in local churches throughout the Empire???

Of course. God could do anything. God could have given me the gift of infallibility.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t mean this is an insult, but this shows your ignorance of the issues. The Roman Catholic Church hasn’t ruled on any or only a few passages of Scripture depending on who you asked. Once again there is this disagreement on what the infallible interpreter even interprets. Notice what probably the greatest Roman Catholic scholar of the 20 th century says about this:

“To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.]
Or we have the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, Exegesis (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 699, 2nd column.]
So you see, one Catholic scholar says he is not aware of any, but the Catholic Encyclopedia says there are a few. The point being Catholics disagree on interpretation just as much and your claim that the church settles it very seldom if ever happens.

Given your vantage point, I should think you would be delighted that the Church has interpreted few if any verses dogmatically.

However, I can assure you that the Catechism sitting here on my desk has 32 pages of two-column, small font print listing hundreds if not thousands of scripture verses referenced within the Catechism in teaching its doctrines accurately to the faithful.

She may not have “interpreted” them, but she sure as heck knows how to use them?

Oh, would you provide the name of your faith community’s Catechism so that I might pick up a copy for review?

Thanks.

 

[SolaScriptura]

So why did Protestants change the canon and follow the Jewish Jamnian canon based upon changes made to the Septuagint? You call it the ‘textus receptus’ (not the bad Greek manuscript that Erasmus gave the Jacobean committee in the 1600s),

Actually, the Protestant canon is more in line with the Church fathers then yours.

And what Church did that exactly? Was it done during Pope Damasus’ reign in the 4th century? Or do you have proof that a bound collection (biblia) of books was being utilized in local churches throughout the Empire???

Yeah, I have pretty good evidence that the Apocrypha was used, but not considered on the same level as the rest of Scripture. Seems like you are picking for a fight on this. You might be surprised at what you learn. Be careful what you ask for.

He did. Whenever you make a moral choice, you are exercising what He gave us. In your mind, SS, you are infallible. Impeccable is another issue.

I see you are mind reader now. Maybe you should be Pope.

And so is that insulting signature flourish you have at the bottom of your postings.

This is the second time you have commented on my signature. I ignored it the first time. You don’t like it? Why not?

 

[BobCatholic]

I guess none of our sola scripturist friends wanted to deal with my objections to Sola Scriptura.

Sola scriptura (“Bible only”) cannot be practiced.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?

What is sola scriptura?
Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used”
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a firm definition to take hold.

1. You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words
2. You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.

Hmm…Scripture…Tradition…Magisterium. That sounds like the Catholic Model instead of sola scriptura

Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[Philthy]

Of course they do. Have you ever spoken with Mormons, JW, and every other cult or sect of Christianity? They all claim their “structure” was there in the Scriptures or the Apostolic period. They may say it disappeared at some point, but they all say it was there.

There were no Mormons and there were no JW’s - those words never escaped a mouth for almost 2 millenia. The arguments are weak and in no sense comparable to the arguments both Scripturally and historically for the Catholic Church.
ss:

On the contrary, from the NT alone it is clear that a new Scriptures were coming. Peter referred to Paul’s letter as Scriptures and Paul quoted the Gospels as Scriptures.

First of all, Peter mentions “Paul’s letters” without identifying what letters he is talking about. You have no idea - apart from the witness and authority of the Church - to know that the writings in the Bible attributed to Paul are, in fact, Paul’s; nor do you know that the letters attributed to Paul in the Bible are the one’s Peter was referencing when he called them “difficult to understand”. And for the record - this one teeny, tiny quote which barely passes as confirmation of anything is hardly an impressive display that these Scriptures were to become the rule of faith apart from the authority of the Church which has over 20 times as much attention addressed to it in Scripture - both in the Gospels and in the Epistles. And this Church is described as “the pillar and foundation of truth” for all wishing to know how to behave in the house of God. There is no comparable statement endorsing Scripture as the sole rule of faith in the New Testament era.
ss:
So that alone shows the Apostles were aware of Scripture being written.

No, the rest of the Apostles are totally silent - they didnt bother to write anything at all. Only Peter, the rock upon whom Christ chose to build his Church bothered to even obliquely mention them, and in doing so he describes them as “difficult…hard to understand” - again, not a glowing endorsement of Scripture alone.
SS:

Also the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic father quoted extensively from them as their rule of faith, so I’m not sure what you are basing your argument on besides your own personal feeling on the matter.

The Fathers quoting from Scripture does nothing to differentiate between the Catholic and Protestant rule of faith, and does nothing to support SS. Current Popes also quote extensively from Scripture.
SS:

Even Christ as far as human nature didn’t know all things. So what if Paul didn’t know all things? I don’t see how this helps your case.

It means that all that was to come - including the hierarchy of the Church and the potential infallibility of the successor to Peter - might not have been explicitly recorded in Scripture because they did not have total knowledge of the entirety of God’s plan.
Such a recognition implies that your repeated requests for “where does Scripture say” are misplaced and do nothing to further the discussion.
SS:

So? They were waiting for the Messiah. After the Messiah left His followers were inspired by God to write additional Scriptures.

I see - Christ didn’t know Scripture was coming, the Apostles didnt know, but eventually it happened and only later, in retrospect was it determined - somehow, by someone, at some point - to have been the will of God. Is that what you are saying? And it wasnt simply Christs Apostles who did the writings, but “followers” of Christ? So Scriptural revelation continued beyond the Apostles yet somehow, at some point it was determined that God’s Scripture ended. And we don’t know WHO made this determination, and we dont know WHEN they made it and we dont know HOW they made it and we dont know BY WHAT AUTHORITY they made it, and they didnt bother to tell anyone THAT they made it? I just dont see that being realistic.

 

[SolaScriptura]

There were no Mormons and there were no JW’s - those words never escaped a mouth for almost 2 millenia. The arguments are weak and in no sense comparable to the arguments both Scripturally and historically for the Catholic Church.

You are all over the place. You make one argument and when I respond to it you just move to the next. Your point was about the “structure” being there. As I pointed out then almost everyone could make that argument. You said that wasn’t true. After pointing out to you that Mormons and JWs make that exact argument, now you are switching to the fact that no ever utter those words. Furthermore, the whole point of this discussion is that I consider your arguments for Papal Infallibility equally weak from Scripture and history.

First of all, Peter mentions “Paul’s letters” without identifying what letters he is talking about. You have no idea - apart from the witness and authority of the Church - to know that the writings in the Bible attributed to Paul are, in fact, Paul’s; nor do you know that the letters attributed to Paul in the Bible are the one’s Peter was referencing when he called them “difficult to understand”.

You have me confused. I don’t deny the need for church history/tradition to fill in these holes. Actually, it is not just church history, but all history. That is how anyone knows anything about the past. You should check out the thread I started on knowing the canon infallibly here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131174 . So you are just swinging at the wind with this stuff.
Philthy;1868547:

And for the record - this one teeny, tiny quote which barely passes as confirmation of anything is hardly an impressive display that these Scriptures were to become the rule of faith apart from the authority of the Church which has over 20 times as much attention addressed to it in Scripture - both in the Gospels and

in the Epistles. And this Church is described as “the pillar and foundation of truth” for all wishing to know how to behave in the house of God. There is no comparable statement endorsing Scripture as the sole rule of faith in the New Testament era.

You are sadly mistaken my friend. Actually, it is not “teeny, tiny quote”. It states unequivocally the many things Scripture is useful for and it says it equips the man of God for every work. It says they are sufficient to make one wise unto salvation. We see the precedent of Jesus using the Scripture over and over in the Gospels as the rule of faith and the final arbiter in theological disputes. I could bury you with quotes from your beloved fathers that sound nothing like the stuff you are spewing about Scripture. But of course you are the guys who are supposed to value the father’s insight so much. You are so reactionary against Scriptures that you sound nothing like them. Furthermore, you are implicitly attributing things to me that I don’t even believe. Like I said earlier you are swinging at the wind. I don’t separate the rule of faith from the authority of the church. Scripture was write for God’s covenant people( his church) and yes it is describe as the pillar and foundation of truth. So what? Any bible believing person should be able to confess those things. They you throw out the comment that ”There is no comparable statement endorsing Scripture as the sole rule of faith in the New Testament era.” This is silly on so many fronts. You are supposed to be proving an Apostolic Succession of infallible Bishops in Rome, not that the Scripture teach there is a church with authority. Also it is abundantly clear that the Scriptures are a rule of faith for the church. By them being the word of God is enough to settle that issue, however in practice we see the Jesus and the Apostles used them for such over and over again. Almost every letter in the NT uses other portions of Scripture to validate their points. Why is this if they are not considered a rule of faith. Now I’m assuming your beef is with them being the only infallible rule of faith. This is what we are supposed to be discussing. If there is another rule of faith presented in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition that is infallible and equal in authority with God’s word that you can demonstrate it contents then by all means please do so and quit all this filibustering.

 

[SolaScriptura]

No, the rest of the Apostles are totally silent - they didnt bother to write anything at all. Only Peter, the rock upon whom Christ chose to build his Church bothered to even obliquely mention them, and in doing so he describes them as “difficult…hard to understand” - again, not a glowing endorsement of Scripture alone.

Why don’t you quote him more in context. He said difficult and hard to understand by the unstable and untaught. But the Scriptures are also likewise filled with the errors that would plague the church. The book of revelations writing to the 7 churches, and almost every epistle to a church is dealing with errors and problems in their midst.

The Fathers quoting from Scripture does nothing to differentiate between the Catholic and Protestant rule of faith, and does nothing to support SS. Current Popes also quote extensively from Scripture.

No, it doesn’t differentiate between the Catholic and Protestant rule of faith , but you are not arguing like a Catholic. You are arguing as if someone who doesn’t belief the Scriptures are a rule of faith, so in this case they are a witness against you. You are rambling all over the place trying to find something that sticks that you don’t even understand the flow of the argument anymore.

It means that all that was to come - including the hierarchy of the Church and the potential infallibility of the successor to Peter - might not have been explicitly recorded in Scripture because they did not have total knowledge of the entirety of God’s plan.

This is special pleading my friend, just like your “structure” argument. Anyone could make this argument about their belief. It was not explicitly recorded in Scripture, because they did not have total knowledge of God’s plan, but God intended to make me, SolaScriptura, infallible all the time. This kind of argumentation can be used to prove anything.

Such a recognition implies that your repeated requests for “where does Scripture say” are misplaced and do nothing to further the discussion.

Answer this. Do you believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture? If you do then I have every right to ask you for proof from Scripture and Tradition. If you don’t then I want you to explain this to Michael and Randy

I see - Christ didn’t know Scripture was coming, the Apostles didnt know, but eventually it happened and only later, in retrospect was it determined - somehow, by someone, at some point - to have been the will of God. Is that what you are saying?

They didn’t know a lot of things were coming which is why Jesus told them he had many more things to tell them. That doesn’t matter. The point is He did eventually guide them to what they were to do.
Philthy;1868547:

And it wasnt simply Christs Apostles who did the writings, but “followers” of Christ? So Scriptural revelation continued beyond the Apostles yet somehow, at some point it was determined that God’s Scripture ended.

No, it did not continue beyond the Apostles if by that you mean after they all died. And once again you demonstrate my point that you are not arguing like a Catholic or the fathers, because they all agreed that revelation ceased with the last Apostle.

And we don’t know WHO made this determination, and we dont know WHEN they made it and we dont know HOW they made it and we dont know BY WHAT AUTHORITY they made it, and they didnt bother to tell anyone THAT they made it? I just dont see that being realistic.

Of course we know. Maybe you are the only person who don’t know so speak for yourself. God made the determination, because he is the giver of revelation. He also determines when, how, and by His authority.

 

[mikeledes]

No, I have assurance through faith that Church inerrantly discerned which books belonged in the Bible and which does not? Do you have have infallible knowledge of this?

So your answer is really yes. You changed “infallibly” to “innerantly”, but the two words mean the same thing. On what do you base this assueance of faith that the Church inerrently discerned which books belonged in the Canon?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sola, I would like to quote Augustine on Apostolic Tradition:

And this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors) (*On Baptism * II, 2, 12)

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

You are all over the place. You make one argument and when I respond to it you just move to the next. Your point was about the “structure” being there. As I pointed out then almost everyone could make that argument. You said that wasn’t true. After pointing out to you that Mormons and JWs make that exact argument, now you are switching to the fact that no ever utter those words. Furthermore, the whole point of this discussion is that I consider your arguments for Papal Infallibility equally weak from Scripture and history.

Good - you believe the argument is weak, others disagree with you and believe the argument is compelling. Im glad that is settled.
ss:

You have me confused. I don’t deny the need for church history/tradition to fill in these holes. Actually, it is not just church history, but all history. That is how anyone knows anything about the past. You should check out the thread I started on knowing the canon infallibly here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131174 . So you are just swinging at the wind with this stuff.

It must be me who is confused regarding your position of Sola Scriptura. I don’t understand how it works. Why dont you explain to me how doctrine is determined in the Church in your model to produce a single, unalterable tenet of the Christian faith to be held as Truth binding upon the conscience of all believers for all time.
ss:

You are sadly mistaken my friend. Actually, it is not “teeny, tiny quote”. It states unequivocally the many things Scripture is useful for and it says it equips the man of God for every work.

This is Catholic as stated. Notice that it never says that Scripture ALONE equips the man of God.
ss:
It says they are sufficient to make one wise unto salvation.

It never says they are sufficient ALONE - in fact that statement follows "remain faithful to what you have believed and learned , BECAUSE YOU KNOW FROM WHOM YOU LEARNED IT .
ss:

We see the precedent of Jesus using the Scripture over and over in the Gospels as the rule of faith and the final arbiter in theological disputes.

Correct, we see a person with authority infallibly ruling on the faith using Scripture.
ss:

I could bury you with quotes from your beloved fathers that sound nothing like the stuff you are spewing about Scripture.

And in doing so you would be proving who’s point?
ss:

But of course you are the guys who are supposed to value the father’s insight so much. You are so reactionary against Scriptures that you sound nothing like them. Furthermore, you are implicitly attributing things to me that I don’t even believe. Like I said earlier you are swinging at the wind. I don’t separate the rule of faith from the authority of the church. Scripture was write for God’s covenant people( his church) and yes it is describe as the pillar and foundation of truth. So what? Any bible believing person should be able to confess those things.

Oh really? No doubt that is your personal interpretation. Would you care to expound on the reason why this has not happened in the slightest during the 500 years following the Reformation? How, exactly, is the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth supposed to manifest itself in a global environment among the faithful in your version of SS?

con’d

 

[Philthy]

ss:

They you throw out the comment that ”There is no comparable statement endorsing Scripture as the sole rule of faith in the New Testament era.” This is silly on so many fronts. You are supposed to be proving an Apostolic Succession of infallible Bishops in Rome, not that the Scripture teach there is a church with authority.

Oh - I thought that you were supposed to be proving the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I believe I already told you that I dont know what you mean by “proving infallibility” remember? Here’s my response from before to this request:

philthy:

I’ll tell you what - you evidentially prove anyone - including the Apostles - taught infallibly and I will know how to respond better to your request. I dont know how one proves infallibility with evidence. It would seem to me that fallibility can be demonstrated but proving infallibility is different.

And this was your response:
SS:
The Scriptures are the evidence. They are said to be speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and God cannot err.
Uhh, this not proof of anything. As you pointed so eloquently earlier, anyone can make this claim regarding their “scriptures”. So please dont place requests on me that are impossible to prove and which you yourself cant even remotely demonstrate regarding your own position.
In addition, almost none of the NT Scriptures claim to be speaking under the inspiration of the HS. Would you like me to review the introduction to the Gospel of Luke for you one more time?? If you think Im mistaken, please provide chapter and verse please.
ss:

Also it is abundantly clear that the Scriptures are a rule of faith for the church. By them being the word of God is enough to settle that issue, however in practice we see the Jesus and the Apostles used them for such over and over again.

That is correct they never simply handed them out to be read, they taught from them - Scriptures were a part of their teaching and confirmed their teaching. But sometimes they had to step outside of Scripture in their teaching. Im thinking of the time that Christ said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” - is that an OT quote he is using or is he teaching something new? Also, Pauls commentaries on advice to the married etc, in 1Cor were not teachings from Scripture per se.
ss:

Almost every letter in the NT uses other portions of Scripture to validate their points. Why is this if they are not considered a rule of faith.

I never said Scripture wasnt considered a source of the rule of faith. I simply said Scripture alone wasnt.
ss:

Now I’m assuming your beef is with them being the only infallible rule of faith.

Sort of. My problem is this: can you list for me all the infallibles rules of the faith simply by citing Scripture verses?

If you cannot, then what good is an infallible rule of faith which cannot - on its own - communicate its message ?

If you can, why do so many SS adherents disagree with your assessment?
ss:

This is what we are supposed to be discussing. If there is another rule of faith presented in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition that is infallible and equal in authority with God’s word that you can demonstrate it contents then by all means please do so and quit all this filibustering.

The Scriptural mandate to “hold fast to traditions” handed on by “letter or word of mouth”; the Scriptural command to “be subject to the presbyters” the Scriptural dictate that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” all present the existance of another rule of faith - not separate from Scripture but not purely Scripture. The Apostolic Tradition of the laying on of hands to appoint members to positions of authority also bears witness to “another rule of faith” which binds the faithful.
Now, lets hear the unanimously accepted, historically verifiable, unchanged, “rules of faith” provided by Scripture. So far you have argued incessantly that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith without presenting a single “rule” or doctrine from it that has been recognized as such.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Good - you believe the argument is weak, others disagree with you and believe the argument is compelling. Im glad that is settled.

Of course it is weak. You have argued for a “structure” being there that anyone could argue for. You have argued that it wasn’t there, but God intended to reveal it later. Once again anyone could argue for that. You have offered nothing of significance.

It must be me who is confused regarding your position of Sola Scriptura. I don’t understand how it works. Why dont you explain to me how doctrine is determined in the Church in your model to produce a single, unalterable tenet of the Christian faith to be held as Truth binding upon the conscience of all believers for all time.

A red herring and rabbit trail that I’m not following you on. Once again you are all over the map. Your church can’t bind the conscience of all believers of all time, no matter what you think, it just doesn’t happen.

This is Catholic as stated. Notice that it never says that Scripture ALONE equips the man of God.

Once again you are at your bait and switch. Initially you were arguing how the “teeny tiny” passage didn’t say much. After I pointed out how much it does say, now you claim it doesn’t say Scripture alone does it. So what? I never claimed it said Scripture alone, but tell me this. Where does it say something else can do the same thing? Also remember Paul was writing this to an Elder of a church. Notice the difference between our approaches. When you mentioned the passage that calls the church the Pillar and Foundation of the truth, I wholeheartedly agreed!! I could have said, “But it doesn’t say the church alone is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The difference is you have no concern for treating the Scriptures fairly. You don’t care how you trash the Scriptures as long as you think Rome will remain standing.

It never says they are sufficient ALONE - in fact that statement follows "remain faithful to what you have believed and learned , BECAUSE YOU KNOW FROM WHOM YOU LEARNED IT .

And what do you think this proves? Of course someone teaches the Scriptures. It doesn’t come by osmosis. The Scriptures themselves speaks of teachers. Even with your tripartite rule of faith someone has to teach them, does that mean they are not sufficient?

Correct, we see a person with authority infallibly ruling on the faith using Scripture.

Where do you see this and for the analogy to work the person you see must have the same qualifications as your Pope. Because in both cases I’m talking about God inspired Scriptures.

And in doing so you would be proving who’s point?

I would be proving the point that you sound nothing like the fathers and their tradition that you think is so necessary. Isn’t that ironic? I sound more like the fathers than you when talking about Scripture.

Oh really? No doubt that is your personal interpretation. Would you care to expound on the reason why this has not happened in the slightest during the 500 years following the Reformation? How, exactly, is the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth supposed to manifest itself in a global environment among the faithful in your version of SS?

Another red herring and rabbit trail. Do you always notice Catholics on this board are always asking me to explain and talk about any and everything.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Of course, how could they write infallibly if they were not? In another thread you have stated that you do not believe that the scriptures are infallible. So which is it infallible or not?

Of course it is, because he says God alone swears securely because he alone is infallible. Furthermore, our souls are not immortal, but they are granted immortality. If our soules have an ending point that what is the point of believing in life ever lasting or in the punishment of Hell. In other words, God could destroy our souls, but he has decided not to. On the other hand God cannot be destroyed, it is impossible.

OK, I will grant you that. However, it was not that one quote alone but the others also. I don’t know if there is any patristic scholar who would argue that Augustine considered Rome infallible Not Rome but the Holy Catholic Church which is based in Rome.

Repeat after me. Authority does not equal infallibility … Authority does not equal infallibility … Authority does not equal infallibility.

Of course Catholicism has to make some appeals for their doctrine, but reading all of Augustine demonstrates this was not what he meant by that statement.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Oh - I thought that you were supposed to be proving the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I believe I already told you that I dont know what you mean by “proving infallibility” remember? Here’s my response from before to this request:

Philthy:

I’ll tell you what - you evidentially prove anyone - including the Apostles - taught infallibly and I will know how to respond better to your request. I dont know how one proves infallibility with evidence. It would seem to me that fallibility can be demonstrated but proving infallibility is different.

And this was your response:

SolaScriptura:

The Scriptures are the evidence. They are said to be speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and God cannot err.

Uhh, this not proof of anything. As you pointed so eloquently earlier, anyone can make this claim regarding their “scriptures”. So please dont place requests on me that are impossible to prove and which you yourself cant even remotely demonstrate regarding your own position.

This is not same at all. Your evidence was that structure was there. This is what I responded to that anyone can say that. However, I gave you direct proof from Scripture the Apostle Paul was speaking infallibly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I can also provide you direct evidence from the church fathers. As I told you before Scripture is evidence. Your problem is that you have provided nothing but structure and God planned on doing it later. That is what anyone can say.

Philthy:

In addition, almost none of the NT Scriptures claim to be speaking under the inspiration of the HS. Would you like me to review the introduction to the Gospel of Luke for you one more time?? If you think Im mistaken, please provide chapter and verse please.

I answered this charge once. Peter said Paul letters were inspired and Paul said the Gospel of Luke was inspired. Furthermore, I can also use the Apostolic and ECFs as witness. Now what evidence can you provide for a Bishop in Rome being infallible from Scripture or early Church tradition? Nada, nothing, zip!

Philthy:

That is correct they never simply handed them out to be read, they taught from them - Scriptures were a part of their teaching and confirmed their teaching.

So what? Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean every has to have their own copy of the Scriptures to read. Of course they are taught from and they serve as a confirmation of when one’s teaching is Christian.

Philthy:

But sometimes they had to step outside of Scripture in their teaching. Im thinking of the time that Christ said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” - is that an OT quote he is using or is he teaching something new?

LOL!! Of course those under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can teach new things or expand on things already taught, But answer me this. How do you know Christ taught, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” ? Can you give me a quote from Christ that is not in Scripture?

Philthy:

Also, Pauls commentaries on advice to the married etc, in 1Cor were not teachings from Scripture per se.

But they became Scripture once he wrote them down. What is your point?

Philthy:

I never said Scripture wasnt considered a source of the rule of faith. I simply said Scripture alone wasnt.

Yes and I never said Scripture alone was a rule of faith, I said Scripture alone is an infallible rule of faith. So we are back full circle. All you have to do is give me evidence from Scripture and/or early church history of another infallible rule of faith. By the way, I don’t remember if you ever answered my question. Do you believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Philthy:

Sort of. My problem is this: can you list for me all the infallibles rules of the faith simply by citing Scripture verses?

No, and that is not necessary. That is an artificial criteria you are trying force on the issue. For example, I could ask you. Can you using your rule of faith list all the ex Cathedra statements made by Popes? If you can’t what does that prove?
However, what I can do is show that the only time the Scriptures considers anyone infallible is when they are inspired of God. I can show where Scripture is considered to be God speaking. I can show where Scripture is used as a rule of faith. So based on this we have Scripture as an infallible rule of faith. Now, can you show anything else in the possession of the church that is equal to this?

Philthy:

If you cannot, then what good is an infallible rule of faith which cannot - on its own - communicate its message ?

It does communicate it message. It message is the plan of redemption. You are making up an artificial message that you want it to communicate.

Philthy:

If you can, why do so many SS adherents disagree with your assessment?

You are not talking to so many SS adherents, instead you are talking to me. So deal with me and my arguments.

Philthy:

The Scriptural mandate to “hold fast to traditions” handed on by “letter or word of mouth”; the Scriptural command to “be subject to the presbyters” the Scriptural dictate that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” all present the existance of another rule of faith - not separate from Scripture but not purely Scripture. The Apostolic Tradition of the laying on of hands to appoint members to positions of authority also bears witness to “another rule of faith” which binds the faithful.

It doesn’t seem like you know what a rule of faith is. The traditions handed on by word of mouth could be a rule of faith. But “be subject to the presbyters” and the church being the “pillar and foundation of truth” are all examples of rules of faith ??? What are you talking about? Since I granted that the Oral Tradition could be a rule of faith all you have to do is show me this rule of faith?

Philthy:

Now, lets hear the unanimously accepted, historically verifiable, unchanged, “rules of faith” provided by Scripture.

Strawman. The Scriptures are the rule of faith and their purpose is to reveal the story of redemption through the work of Jesus Christ. As Jesus told the Pharisees the Scriptures are all about him. They are sufficient for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. If you are looking for them to be a catalogue of whatever you mind fancies then you are trying to used them for something they were not intended for.

Philthy:

So far you have argued incessantly that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith without presenting a single “rule” or doctrine from it that has been recognized as such.

I should save this phrase so that I can cut-n-paste it, because I get asked this same question almost daily. The principle of Scripture being the sole infallible rule of faith is arrived at by good and necessary consequence. I presented it above, but I will do it again here. Scripture is called the word of God. The word of God is infallible and there can be no higher authority. Scripture is the only verifiable word of God we have in the possession of the church. Therefore, until someone can demonstrate another source that is infallible and equal to the word of God, the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith with the highest authority in the church.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Of course, how could they write infallibly if they were not?

In another thread you have stated that you do not believe that the scriptures are infallible. So which is it infallible or not?

Please show me where I said I didn’t believe the Scriptures are infallible. That is a pretty amazing statement, being that I have been arguing for days the Scriptures are the sole [SIGN]infallible[/SIGN] rule of faith.

 

[Philthy]

Of course it is weak. You have argued for a “structure” being there that anyone could argue for. You have argued that it wasn’t there, but God intended to reveal it later. Once again anyone could argue for that. You have offered nothing of significance.

Again - you consider it weak. Others do not. You are very quick to ignore or discount everything I do offer yet you provide not a whisper of evidence to support your own claims nor do you accept the invitation to explain how your version of SS is any stronger.
ss:

A red herring and rabbit trail that I’m not following you on. Once again you are all over the map. Your church can’t bind the conscience of all believers of all time, no matter what you think, it just doesn’t happen.

Actually, I never said my Church did or did not. I simply asked you how it would happen under your version of SS. And you reverted to attacking the Catholic rule of faith rather than sharing your own. How does the infallible rule of faith which exists within a book become communicated to the faithful? You think that is a red herring? I dont think so - I dont think you want to tell us any specifics because then you will be in the position that I am in - defending endless critique based on opinions.
Its very simple how something becomes binding in Catholicism - at least in the ideal sense: The Holy Spirit guides, the Pope or Magisterium speaks, the bishops and priests relay and the message is heard. Examples are the Trinity, divinity of Christ, Real Presence, etc These beliefs are binding on all Catholics.
Now you may argue that an argument from pragmatics proves nothing, but if you cant at least demonstrate the possibility of the truth being conveyed through SS then I consider that a major problem for your argument.
ss:

Once again you are at your bait and switch. Initially you were arguing how the “teeny tiny” passage didn’t say much.

Calm down - I was not attempting bait and switch at all. I was talking about Peter’s reference to Paul’s letters as Scriptures - you introduced 2Tim…thats all.
ss:

After I pointed out how much it does say, now you claim it doesn’t say Scripture alone does it. So what? I never claimed it said Scripture alone, but tell me this.

So if it doesnt argue for Scripture alone, then why bring it up? We both consider Scripture to be a rule of faith - you dont need to convince me of the value of Sacred Scripture. In the context of this discussion, what value would it have other than supporting your version of SS. Adn if your claim is that Scripture doesnt stand alone but requires the Church to uphold it, then what are we arguing about?
ss:

Also remember Paul was writing this to an Elder of a church.

Yes he was. Someone who he was aware “knew all Scripture” from his youth. Yet Paul feels compelled to write him a letter to explain to him how to behave in the Church because that knowledge of Scripture, alone, was insufficient. Paul’s full expectation was to be there in person to teach him the faith. He wrote the letter ONLY because the possibility of a delay was real and writing it down was a good contigency plan (ie plan B). In that I see the teaching authority of the Church in its purest form.
ss:

Notice the difference between our approaches. When you mentioned the passage that calls the church the Pillar and Foundation of the truth, I wholeheartedly agreed!! I could have said, “But it doesn’t say the church alone is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The difference is you have no concern for treating the Scriptures fairly. You don’t care how you trash the Scriptures as long as you think Rome will remain standing.

Actually you are simply mistaken. The verse does actually say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The 2 Tim verse is far less forceful for a number of reasons:

1. It describes Scripture as “useful” which is simply not the strongest of terms and virtually implies that it, alone, does not accomplish these things but that it, along with other things accomplishes them
   2)It is unclear what the Scripture reference is - is it OT, some of the NT, or the entirety of Scripture? We are simply left guessing. Given the fact that Paul references Timothy’s knowledge of Scripture “from his youth” there is good reason to believe he is referring to the OT.

ss:

And what do you think this proves? Of course someone teaches the Scriptures. It doesn’t come by osmosis. The Scriptures themselves speaks of teachers. Even with your tripartite rule of faith someone has to teach them, does that mean they are not sufficient?

No, the difference is that a teaching authority is an inherent part of that tripartate rule of faith whereas a teaching authority is not an inherent part of SS - at least not the one the Reformers were advocating.

con’d…

 

[Philthy]

ss:

I would be proving the point that you sound nothing like the fathers and their tradition that you think is so necessary. Isn’t that ironic? I sound more like the fathers than you when talking about Scripture.

Im not talking Scripture per se - Im talking about Sola Scriptura and using Scripture alone as the sole, infallible rule of faith.
ss:

Another red herring and rabbit trail. Do you always notice Catholics on this board are always asking me to explain and talk about any and everything.

Calm down - it was not an unreasonable request - it was germaine to the topic at hand. You made some claims which directly affect this discussion and which confuse me. Here is the first one:
ss:

I don’t separate the rule of faith from the authority of the church.

Please explain what “authority” the Church has in your version of SS - I dont know what that means. I have to assume you mean something different from Catholicism, but please explain what the “authority” of the Church is for, and how it upholds the truth, and an expample of it from a non-Catholic. Is that really an unreasonable question?
ss:

Scripture was written for God’s covenant people( his church) and yes it is describe as the pillar and foundation of truth. So what?

Well, now Im a little confused; is there an entity within God’s covenant people who exercise authority over other members or does every member of the Church have the authority to function as the pillar and foundation of truth or what?
ss:

Any bible believing person should be able to confess those things.

You are gonna get heat anytime you say “any bible believing person should” agree with, believe, or confess anything because the view from my side of the fence is that they believe all kinds of different things. If that offends you, Im sorry - but that is the fallible way I see it.
And I lastly responded "How, exactly, is the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth supposed to manifest itself in a global environment among the faithful in your version of SS? Does this not require a visible head of the Church, especially during times of turmoil? I dont think this is unreasonable. I want to understand where you are coming from and how your version of SS rises to the actual challenges of the day.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Please show me where I said I didn’t believe the Scriptures are infallible. That is a pretty amazing statement, being that I have been arguing for days the Scriptures are the sole [sign]infallible[/sign] rule of faith.

Done

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible …
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeledes forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*So if you do not have infallible certainity of the canon, Sola, do you have infallible certainty that the Bible is the word of God?
*

Nope, I don’t. I have faith and the evidence confirms this faith. If I had infallible knowledge I wouldn’t need faith.

Do you have infallible knowledge of who God is? Do you have infallible knowledge of that Catholicism is the one and only true chruch? Do you have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon?

Please answer each question.

 

[Philthy]

The principle of Scripture being the sole infallible rule of faith is arrived at by good and necessary consequence. I presented it above, but I will do it again here.
Scripture is called the word of God. The word of God is infallible and there can be no higher authority.

I believe the correct term is that it is inerrant, not infallible. Infallible refers to an action that is undertaken by a person, whereas inerrancy refers to the accuracy(lack of error) of a piece of information.
ss:

Scripture is the only verifiable word of God we have in the possession of the church. Therefore, until someone can demonstrate another source that is infallible and equal to the word of God, the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith with the highest authority in the church.

I can see why we will continue to go in circles. You have Scripture only because the Church revealed it to you, yet now that Scripture has been revealed the function of the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth has essentially ended. You cannot provide a single shred of evidence that this transformation happened. It wasnt in operation while any of the Apostles were alive, No one spoke of it, no one prophesied it, and for hundreds of years no one claimed to be working towards completing the canon which was to be the only source of divine revelation for all time. But somehow now that the Church was infallibly guided by the HS to produce a canon and declare the end of Scripture you seem to think that Scripture has basically replaced the Church in its role of propogating the faith according to the Great Commission. But there are some problems with this thinking. I will simply address the primary problem I see with your conceptually clean but functionally unactionable statement of SS above. The problem is that you moved from the “inerrant word of God” to the “infallible rule of faith”. Scripture simply cannot - as in, it is impossible - move from being words on a page to being the “rule of faith” for all topics for all people for all time. That requires interaction with another - a visible, audible, cognitive other. It can be the inerrant source from which another entity discerns the “rule of faith”, but it cannot be both in itself. **So the question becomes, "**By what process will the inerrant word of God be interacted with to produce the infallible rule of faith? That is really the essence of the discussion that we are having. Luther’s version of SS placed that function squarely on the lap of the individual being guided by the HS. The Catholic believes that while revelation is possible, the Pope and the Magisterium are simply the usual means that the Holy Spirit uses to guide the Church in determining the rule of faith. And we believe that if and when it happens it is done infallibly because it is the HS doing it, and, as you said, God cannot error.
I still do not know how you propose this establishment of the “rule of faith” occurs acccording to your understanding of SS. You have intimated that you do not dimiss the “authority of the Church” and you have also said that “teachers” are necessary, but you have gotten down to brass tacks and provided a means for preaching the “one faith” to “every nation”.