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

[jacobaer]

I ask this question of SolaScriptura and everyone else in this discussion who holds to Sola Scriptura:

Is it necessary for my salvation that I believe that Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature?

Waiting,
Jacobaer

 

[hoosierdaddy]

In actuality the Bible gives to the Church an degree of authority it never “claims for itself.” See 1 Tim 3:15: “but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Note the key word “write”. “I WRITE so that you may know…”. We learn how we are to act in the house of God by reading what Scripture tells us about how to act in the house of God. The Church may be the pillar of the truth but what is the truth? The Scriptures. The Church is supposed to hold to the Scriptures; in this way it is the pillar of truth.

And - the oft quoted verse from elswhere in Pauls writing to Timothy - 2 Tim 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” is often turned around in its meaning by Sola Scripturists.

Note carefully the language, even in English…

It says ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God… That speaks about the inspiration of scripture… it DOES NOT say - and this is crucial - it DOES NOT say that scripture is ALL that is inspired by God! There is a vital difference and there is no way the English or the Greek can be reconstructed to mean that.

You seem to be playing word games. It says ALL Scripture. Therefore ALL Scripture is inspired by God. Anything that is not Scripture is not inspired by God. Apart from Scripture you absolutely cannot know what to believe and what to reject. I could say I was Jesus Christ but Scripture proves me wrong.

Yes, Paul told Timothy that God inspired the scripture. But he ALSO told Timothy that the CHURCH was the pillar and grond of truth. Paul clearly places significant authority in the CHURCH.

See above. The Church is subject to the Word of God. It is not above it. Your belief was a major reason that the Reformation was needed; the Church was steeped in traditions and superstitions and the Reformers wanted to get it back to the Word of God. Had it held to the Word of God and been subject to the Word of God, there would have been no reason for the Reformation.

One simply cannot use what Paul said in 2 Tim 3:16-17 to means that scripture is all that there is that is God-inspired. And 1 Tim 3:15 certainly says the Church is, else how could it be the pillar and ground of truth?

So I can’t believe the Bible is all that is inspired (though it explicitly says this) but I have to believe that the Church is because…you say so? Something’s wrong here. How else could the Church be the pillar of truth? By first, accepting that Scripture is truth and second, by being subject to it. They can’t be the pillar of truth if they refuse the sole source of truth.

 

[Reformed1]

In actuality the Bible gives to the Church an degree of authority it never “claims for itself.” See 1 Tim 3:15: “but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

And - the oft quoted verse from elswhere in Pauls writing to Timothy - 2 Tim 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” is often turned around in its meaning by Sola Scripturists.

Note carefully the language, even in English…

It says ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God… That speaks about the inspiration of scripture… it DOES NOT say - and this is crucial - it DOES NOT say that scripture is ALL that is inspired by God! There is a vital difference and there is no way the English or the Greek can be reconstructed to mean that.

So in looking at what scripture itself says about its authoritativeness, we have to heed ALL that it says - not just here or there. But even if we limit ourselves to the Pastoral Letters to Timothy, we see it more clearly.

In one part of the letters, Paul does verify that scripture is inspired by god, and is profitable for use. Paul even says ALL scripture. But WHAT was Paul talking about? His letters? The New Testament? Of course not! Neither existed as scripture (in the sense we use the word today) OR as a colletion in a book when Paul wrote. What PAUL knew as scripture was the Septuagint. But that’s another point…

Yes, Paul told Timothy that God inspired the scripture. But he ALSO told Timothy that the CHURCH was the pillar and grond of truth. Paul clearly places significant authority in the CHURCH.

One simply cannot use what Paul said in 2 Tim 3:16-17 to means that scripture is all that there is that is God-inspired. And 1 Tim 3:15 certainly says the Church is, else how could it be the pillar and ground of truth?

Peter is the one that actually refers to Paul’s letters as being scripture.

 

[mikeledes]

I would also like to add that 1 Timothy 3:15 describes the church as the “house” or “household” of God. A household is not a loose fellowship, but an organized body with an authority structure. The Church is a God established household with a God ordained authority structure designed to tend guide, and teach His flock, as He promised in the passages from Jeremiah.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I ask this question of SolaScriptura and everyone else in this discussion who holds to Sola Scriptura:

Is it necessary for my salvation that I believe that Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature?

Waiting,
Jacobaer

I would say yes, according to John 1 and John 3:16. Sorry you had to wait.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I would also like to add that 1 Timothy 3:15 describes the church as the “house” or “household” of God. A household is not a loose fellowship, but an organized body with an authority structure. The Church is a God established household with a God ordained authority structure designed to tend guide, and teach His flock, as He promised in the passages from Jeremiah.

God Bless,
Michael

And when that authority is corrupt (as it was in the Reformation) you do not submit to it. You “come out from them” as God commands.

If authority was to be blindly followed and obeyed, what is the excuse for the rebellion against the Queen to go and start another country? Oh wait…it was Protestants who did that too huh?

 

[Philthy]

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS

1. The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.

This, of course is what our friend SS was calling a “straw man”.
As far as I’m concerned there is simply too much assumed here to make this statement of value. Certainly a closed Bible is useless even though it is “sufficient” according to this definition. How does this definition address the fact that the Scriptures require the “Church” to interact with the Scriptures in order for the Scriptures to “function” as the “infallible rule of faith”? Who, or what, is the Church?

martin:

1. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.

I agree - although it should not be assumed from the above statement that belief alone entitles one to the Kingdom of Heaven. All this says is that what must be believed by the faithful is contained in Scripture - not that “believing” alone is sufficient to enter the Kingdom.

martin:

1. That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication is not binding upon the Christian.

Says whom? And by what authority? How did we come to this knowledge exactly?

martin:

1. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).

Scripture “reveals”? Another long discussion - reveals to or through whom?

martin:

1. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9).

Unless, of course, the Scriptures themselves provide for a tradition of equal authority - which they do (2Thess, 1Tim3:15).

 

[clmowry]

If you have been reading this thread you should know already that I have responded to this very weak form of an argument already. For example, if Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching magisterium of Rome were correct, then we wouldn’t have had all those splits throughout church history on things such as Papal Infallibility, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception, the Canon, the Lord’s Supper, etc.

I guess I missed something. Papal Infallibility, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception, the Canon, the Lord’s Supper?

Which denominations did these splits produce?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

1. That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication is not binding upon the Christian.

Says whom? And by what authority? How did we come to this knowledge exactly?

My guess is 2Tim.3 and also the verse in Scripture that says “let God be true and every man a liar”. Oh…and the one about searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so. The Bereans in Acts. I can get the reference if you’d like.

Also, the traditions you mentioned…those were the OT Scriptures in oral form as passed down through the generations because not everyone had a written copy.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**clm>>I guess I missed something. Papal Infallibility, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception, the Canon, the Lord’s Supper?

Which denominations did these splits produce?**

So your claim is that all Catholics agree on all of the above?

 

[mikeledes]

Peter is the one that actually refers to Paul’s letters as being scripture.

But which of those letters is he referring to? He wrote letters that are not included in our canon. And let’s say that Paul’s letters were already part of the canon. How about the letters of James, Jude, John, and the Book of Revelation, all of which were disputed in the early church?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Semantics. When the dissention is among Catholics it’s ok but when it’s among Protestants it’s not. Ok. You will have to be more convincing.

Scripture says we see through a glass darkly. Please be accurate. Most Protestants agree on the main important things. They form their own denominations (most of them anyways) based on personalities, worship styles, and other such secondary issues. At least we stick to the Bible; Catholics have an out with everything. They can just say it’s Tradition even when it contradicts Scripture.

** I disagree. Catholics all over the place disagree about many things. They even say that they aren’t required to believe that Mary never died, etc. I don’t believe the Church has any way to deal with contrary beliefs. If they did they would not sit on the fence over the Fatima issue, nor over the issue of whether Mary ever died or not.

I think there are plenty of Protestant denominations with as much if not more structural unity than the RCC. As for consistency in doctrinal teachings, I already commented on that. I’ve been saying the same thing for two weeks though and I’m beginning to believe that some of you don’t listen.**

**I think us Protestants are basically…tired of answering this question when it is apparent you don’t want to listen. Read your Bible…it will come to you. **

Individual Catholics can disagree all they want with the establsihed teaching of the Church. That doesn’t change the fact that those teachings are the official teaching of the Church and binding on all believers.

In terms of structural unity, Protestants may come close to Catholicism, but I doubt they have more of it than the Catholic Church. Please provide examples.

Those arguing for Sola Scriptura have not presented a strong case for the Bible being the sole vehicle of Divine Revelation. The Bible no where says that. It says it’s profitable, but it never says it is sufficient or the exclusive vehicle God chose to convey Divine Revelation.

God Bless,
michael

 

[mikeledes]

My guess is 2Tim.3 and also the verse in Scripture that says “let God be true and every man a liar”. Oh…and the one about searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so. The Bereans in Acts. I can get the reference if you’d like.

Also, the traditions you mentioned…those were the OT Scriptures in oral form as passed down through the generations because not everyone had a written copy.

Concerning the Bereans, that is not evidence of Sola Scriptura. Paul was making the claim that Jesus was fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. Naturally, they would have to turn to those prophesies in order to see if Jesus truly fulfilled them. In fact, they interpereted them in light of the ORAL TEACHING received from Saint Paul.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

Peter is the one that actually refers to Paul’s letters as being scripture.

Here’s the verse…

2Pet 3:16…speaking of this as he( Paul) does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

What he “actually” does is refer to letters of Paul’s - without specifying which ones he is referring to. Simply because he uses the term “all Paul’s letters” does not, of necessity mean he is speaking of the letters we have. We cannot simply assume that the letters of Paul’s which we have are the letters he was speaking of. There may have been others - in fact Im pretty sure Paul refers to “other” letters that he wrote but which have been lost.
Furthermore, such a statement by an alleged letter of Peter is useless without the Church to proclaim it as legitimate in the first place! It only stands to reason that if Peter and the other Apostles knew exactly what the canon Scripture was that they had a plan for providing the faithful with that knowledge. Doesnt it? What was their plan? Why didn’t they write it down clearly? Afterall, if Scripture is going to become the standard by which the faith is revealed, how did they expect to “teach all that (Christ) commanded them” without writing it down and letting everyone know? Instead of a concrete, organized explanation of the faith, the Church and the all importance of Scripture, we have a lot of disorganized, vaguely worded Scripture. That simply does not add up. You have to admit that it seems like they had another plan; a plan which involved a living authority, guided by the holy Spirit to witness to the Truth; ie, the Church.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Concerning the Bereans, that is not evidence of Sola Scriptura. Paul was making the claim that Jesus was fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. Naturally, they would have to turn to those prophesies in order to see if Jesus truly fulfilled them. In fact, they interpereted them in light of the ORAL TEACHING received from Saint Paul.

God bless,
Michael

I disagree. It is an implicit statement that Scripture is the highest authority, even above traditions. To tell them to search the Scriptures gives one good reason to believe that the Scriptures are the highest authority.

Knowing the nature of man and how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, how could you trust man over Scripture? Especially when God said, “let God be true and every man a liar”?

 

[Reformed1]

But which of those letters is he referring to? He wrote letters that are not included in our canon. And let’s say that Paul’s letters were already part of the canon. How about the letters of James, Jude, John, and the Book of Revelation, all of which were disputed in the early church?

God Bless,
Michael

Which of Paul’s letters is Peter referring to?

I don’t know, I suppose a quick look at the historical record would give us some indication.

I was simply replying to a statment *“In one part of the letters, Paul does verify that scripture is inspired by god, and is profitable for use. Paul even says ALL scripture. But WHAT was Paul talking about? His letters? The New Testament? Of course not! Neither existed as scripture (in the sense we use the word today) OR as a colletion in a book when Paul wrote. What PAUL knew as scripture was the Septuagint. But that’s another point…” *which isn’t entirely accurate as Paul recognized the Gospel of Luke as being scripture and Peter recognized Paul’s letters as being scripture. The other poster seems to think that Paul was somehow limiting scripture to only the OT which is not the case at all.

 

[mikeledes]

**clm>>I guess I missed something. Papal Infallibility, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception, the Canon, the Lord’s Supper?

Which denominations did these splits produce?**

So your claim is that all Catholics agree on all of the above?

The official teaching of the Church is that which is formally and officially taught by the Magisterium, not what is expressed in opinion polls. Any Catholic who dissents is a heretic or a schismatic. In Protestantism, diversity of doctrine is okay because we “see through a glass darkly.” I wonder what Saint Paul would have said if someone dissented from his teaching. Would he say “It’s okay my brother, we all see through a glass darkly?” Or, “you view is just as legitimate as mine because we all see through a glass darkly?” I don’t think so.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Yeah, just like the Jews right who were also given the Scripture with a correct understaning/interpretation of the Word of God? And this is also why there were so many debates in the early church and they continued on until the East and West even split. However, even after the split there are still wide ranges of disagreements amongst Catholics about what Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium actually means on numerous issues.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not in poll numbers.

Your initial point was that “The Bible was given to a Church that already possessed the correct understanding/interpretation of the Word of God.” in contrast to sola Scriptura not having this and that being its problem. Well, I asked you some question above that your didn’t answer. Did the Jews have this correct understanding/interpretation of the Word of God? If not, why didn’t they need it? If they did, how did they get it so wrong?

No one is talking about poll numbers, but real disagreements by conservative Catholics. BTW, when was the first Catechism written? How does this solve the problem for the 2nd and 3rd century? What about all the different points of doctrine that the Catechism doesn’t speak about?

Disgreements on what Scripture and Tradition means are settled authoritaively by the Magisterium.

C’mon Michael, I’m sure you know better than that. There are very few things the Magisterium has ruled on in the grand scheme of things. The differences amongst Catholics in reference to interpretations are numerous, they even disagree on the method of interpretations.

If there are Catholics that disagree with settled doctrine is besides the point. The debates in the early church that you make reference to generally arose when there were challenges to Orthodox Christian teaching. These challenges from heretics forced the Church to clearly define teachings that it may have previously taken for granted. The Council of Nicaea is an excellent example of the Magisterium at work and Protestants enjoy its benefits today.

Of course if by Magisterium you mean the modern day Catholic meaning then you would be wrong. However, you are right Protestants benefit from the work of the early church, because they are our fathers also and I’m ( we ) are not ashamed to say so. The distinction here is the same as the distinction for authority in the church. We respect them, we just don’t consider them as infallible and neither do you. Your church picks and chooses what it believes from Tradition and the early fathers. If she didn’t you wouldn’t embrace most if not all the Marian dogmas, Papal Infallibility and host of other doctrines.

Read the tracts on the Church Fathers and Catholic doctrine in this website.

That is a cop out. You have been preaching to me about needing Apostolic Tradition to interpret the Scriptures correctly and so I ask you for it and you send me to tracts and doctrines on a website? I want the Apostolic Tradition sense that is why you said was needed.

Like I said, the teachings of the Church are found in the Catechism. Any disputes are resolved by the Magisterium.

OK, show me where the magisterium has solved the debate over predestination or the material sufficiency vs material insufficiency of Scripture.

SolaScriptura:

Well, that is an assertion without an argument. On what basis do you believe it can only be done in the context of the nebulous Tradition and Magisterium( which you really mean Rome and the Bishops in communion with her).

On the basis of this:

Acts 15:1-2

Acts 16:4

I also make my argument on the basis of this:

1 Timothy 3:15

At least you gave an argument, but it wasn’t convincing in the least. I affirm all those passages and binding authority of the council that met and ruled. Remember, the God-inspired Apostles came to that conclusion. However, this doesn’t come close to answering the question I asked. The above is Scripture and inspired Apostles. What is the evidence for you concept of Tradition and Magisteruim.

My word count for a single post is running out so I will stop, before answer the last of your post in reference to my dependence on the infallible magisterium. Besides begging the question on magisterium, I don’t consider it infallible. Your church didn’t until after the Reformation and people got along fine, so why do you think it has to be infallible defined now?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The official teaching of the Church is that which is formally and officially taught by the Magisterium, not what is expressed in opinion polls. Any Catholic who dissents is a heretic or a schismatic. In Protestantism, diversity of doctrine is okay because we “see through a glass darkly.” I wonder what Saint Paul would have said if someone dissented from his teaching. Would he say “It’s okay my brother, we all see through a glass darkly?” Or, “you view is just as legitimate as mine because we all see through a glass darkly?” I don’t think so.

God Bless,
Michael

Do we see through a glass darkly or do we not?

You can put your trust in a Magisterium…I will put mine in the Lord Jesus Christ and the written Word He left us so that we would not be deceived by man. You keep forgetting (and this is THE last time I’m going to say it) that Protestants are not divided on issues of the Gospel. The true Christians anyways.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I ask this question of SolaScriptura and everyone else in this discussion who holds to Sola Scriptura:

Is it necessary for my salvation that I believe that Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature?

Waiting,
Jacobaer

No, but it is necessary that you do not deny it. All the people that are saved in the Scriptures when were they asked if they believed that doctrine? Do you believe all the uneducated people in theological disputes are not saved until they confess belief in the above?