Another argument for Sola Scriptura

[Redbandito]

Richard_Hurtz:

If Trent, Rome, Carthage (twice), and other councils have ‘defined’ (Infallibly, in the case of Trent) the Canon, in what way do “some” say that it is not closed? That would seem to be in opposition to Trent, at least.

When Jesus says “even as we are one” what about this leads you to believe that different denominations are not permitted?
Isn’t the Godhead three in one? Three persons yet one God?
What makes you think that there cannot be unity in Christ in that same way among believers in different denominations?

Blessings,
Richard

I’m pretty sure he is speaking of Jews when he says “some”. Furthermore, your question is a bit ingenuous considering you reject the clearly defined canon of the Church.

And the trinity argument is certainly not a good one. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are not divided by matters of truth. They are one in mind on truth, as we should be.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

JimG:

People can teach. Books can’t. The bible, as a book, is an inanimate object, unable to explain itself.

Really?

If books “can’t teach”, then why I do find so many references to Mr. Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism on this forum, or Patrick Madrid’s writings, or other documents from Catholic Answers? Perhaps, you should reprove the people posting on this website that books “can’t teach”. Do you read books? If so, why?

Further, the Catechism itself is published as a book is it not? It seems to me a cruel irony to deem books incapable of instruction and then promulgate the teachings of an Infallible Teacher in a book. The inital problem remains and is compounded by your explanation. You have the (insufficiently, in your view) Divinely Revealed Word of God which requires an Infallible Teacher to “explain” the Word of God “correctly”, those teachings then require further “explanation” when questions arise over the Infallible Pronouncements.

There are devout, practicing Catholics that are at the forefront of every area of endeavor in the sciences, arts, etc… Do you mean to tell me that the very same mind given by God and capable of understanding integral calculus and quantum physics is insufficient to understand the very writings that He inspired that were written in the “everyday language” of the “man on the street” of the first century?

JimG:

Actually, this is not a problem. The Church, as a living body with a teaching magisterium, can explain its own documents and proclaim its own teachings. People can teach.

This is the type of boilerplate disclaimer that breaks down upon closer scrutiny.

Which people? Can you name them?

Who is qualified to “explain” its documents and teachings?

Is my local parish priest “authoritative enough” to explain these teachings “correctly” and “without error”? How about my bishop? If I pose questions to my bishop how “certain” can I be that I am being taught “without error”? What about the arch-bishop? My cardinal? How high up the hierarchy must I go to receive “error free instruction”? Is the Catechism an ex cathedra document?

If I understand Catholic doctrine “correctly” on this point, not even the Supreme Pontiff is protected from teaching error aside from ex cathedra statements made on matters of faith and/or morals that are addressed to the entire Church. So, if I and the Pope were having lunch, and I asked a question regarding a matter of faith, his answer to me would probably be intelligent, insightful, learned, compassionate, etc…but I have no guarantee that it is “without error”.

You may regard this as an advantage, I do not.

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[MysticRose]

trumpet152:

I know we see these all the time, but I’ve never heard this argument. My friend was telling me about it. Perhaps I could get some help.

Obviously, the most effective argument against scripture alone is that scripture does not claim it. I need no help here.

But on the issue of the canon, this argument seemed to catch me off guard:
“The apostles approved the canon themselves. They gave the authority on the list of books. By 100 AD there was a definitive list. After the death of the last apostle, sola Scriptura took effect.”

Any thoughts on it? Easy answers or refutations?

You mean to tell me that simply because the apostles them,selves approved the canon is enough proof that Sola Scriptura is proven… Well then that would mean that they then approved where it said this wouldn’t it
2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
So I am guessing, and I would think in a logical manner here that they knew they said this wrote this and then approved this in the canon therefore disproving the Sola Scripturists idea that it is through written word alone … it is there in black and white an quite frankly it is a violation of Sola Scriptura to then negate a Scripture simply because they do not like what it has to say…

Also these might help you as well

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

also further proof of the Dueterocanon that was removed by the Protestants and the relevant Scriptures that pertain to it in the 66 books
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

I hope that ll of this helps you

Pax Christi
Mystic Rose

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Redbandito:

This is a fallacious argument. The Jews did NOT have a canon. In fact, there was an ATTEMPT for Jews to form a canon in 90 AD, in what we refer to as the Council of Jamnia. This was obviously after the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, anything established by Jewish authorities at this time would have no authority over any Christian.

This is not a fallacious argument, but one that addresses the subject at hand.

How did Old Testament Jews recognize Scripture?

Thanks for your help and Peace to you,
Richard

 

[Redbandito]

Richard_Hurtz:

Really?

If books “can’t teach”, then why I do find so many references to Mr. Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism on this forum, or Patrick Madrid’s writings, or other documents from Catholic Answers? Perhaps, you should reprove the people posting on this website that books “can’t teach”. Do you read books? If so, why?

Further, the Catechism itself is published as a book is it not? It seems to me a cruel irony to deem books incapable of instruction and then promulgate the teachings of an Infallible Teacher in a book. The inital problem remains and is compounded by your explanation. You have the (insufficiently, in your view) Divinely Revealed Word of God which requires an Infallible Teacher to “explain” the Word of God “correctly”, those teachings then require further “explanation” when questions arise over the Infallible Pronouncements.

Come on Richard, don’t be like this. Are you trying to seek truth, or are you trying to win an argument? Be honest. This argument is silly. We can learn from books. Nobody denies that. But, when I have a question over my understanding of something in the book, I cannot ask the book and expect a response. Surely you can see the difference. You’re twisting his words.

Richard_Hurtz:

This is the type of boilerplate disclaimer that breaks down upon closer scrutiny.

Which people? Can you name them?

Who is qualified to “explain” its documents and teachings?

Is my local parish priest “authoritative enough” to explain these teachings “correctly” and “without error”? How about my bishop? If I pose questions to my bishop how “certain” can I be that I am being taught “without error”? What about the arch-bishop? My cardinal? How high up the hierarchy must I go to receive “error free instruction”? Is the Catechism an ex cathedra document?

If I understand Catholic doctrine “correctly” on this point, not even the Supreme Pontiff is protected from teaching error aside from ex cathedra statements made on matters of faith and/or morals that are addressed to the entire Church. So, if I and the Pope were having lunch, and I asked a question regarding a matter of faith, his answer to me would probably be intelligent, insightful, learned, compassionate, etc…but I have no guarantee that it is “without error”.

You may regard this as an advantage, I do not.

Peace to you,
Richard

Actually, yes I can. And if you were an informed Catholic back in the day, as you claim to have been, you would know too. Each individual priest or parish has authoritative true teachings in so much as he is in line with the teaching of the Magisterium. Example: You work for a drug and alc. counseling center. You go around proclaiming, contrary to your mission statement, that you are really a marketing facility. That doesn’t change the mission statement, does it? Of course not! Nor does your claim have any substance behind it. You speak truly, only in so much as you speak for what your company ACTUALLY stands for. Same thing goes for parish priests. Each priest is not infallible. However, when he teaches in accord with the Magisterium, he teaches infallibly. There is a distinction, and you aren’t making it.

And clearly you don’t understand Catholic doctrine, because you are wrong. The pope ABSOLUTELY speaks infallibly when making an ex cathedra statement over faith or morals. Where you got your info, I have no idea. However, it is incorrect.

 

[Redbandito]

Richard_Hurtz:

This is not a fallacious argument, but one that addresses the subject at hand.

How did Old Testament Jews recognize Scripture?

Thanks for your help and Peace to you,
Richard

Again, it is fallacious, because it assumes something that is incorrect. The Jews did not all hold to one “canon”. The Sadduccees only accepted the pentateuch as inspired. The Pharisees accepted the tenach. There were other groups with different ideas as well. There was no authoritative canon. And as for how they passed on any of this, it was through…tradition.

 

[mercygate]

Richard_Hurtz:

This is not a fallacious argument, but one that addresses the subject at hand.

How did Old Testament Jews recognize Scripture?

Thanks for your help and Peace to you,
Richard

While sacred writings have always been held in honor, it seems clear that the idea of Sacred Scripture as a limited and closed Book, with a capital “B”, evolved after the struggles to determine which writings were to be accepted as “God breathed.” Since the Jews in the time of Christ did not recognize a single canon, a Jew of that day would likely answer your question by referring to the authority of his Rabbi or his rabbinic school.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Redbandito:

Each individual priest or parish has authoritative true teachings in so much as he is in line with the teaching of the Magisterium. Example: You work for a drug and alc. counseling center. You go around proclaiming, contrary to your mission statement, that you are really a marketing facility. That doesn’t change the mission statement, does it? Of course not! Nor does your claim have any substance behind it. You speak truly, only in so much as you speak for what your company ACTUALLY stands for. Same thing goes for parish priests. Each priest is not infallible. However, when he teaches in accord with the Magisterium, he teaches infallibly. There is a distinction, and you aren’t making it.

How is the believer to know that the explanation of the priest is in concert with the Magesterium? You see, the problem of private judgement never goes away no matter how “firebreaks” you want to set up.

In order to distinguish that priest is in fact teaching correctly, the lay person would already have to have apprehended the correct meaning of the Magesterium’s teachings which obviates the need for the priest in this particular circumstance. And if the lay person did not understand the Magesterium’s teaching correctly how would they know the difference?

Peace to you,
Richard

Redbandito:

And clearly you don’t understand Catholic doctrine, because you are wrong. The pope ABSOLUTELY speaks infallibly when making an ex cathedra statement over faith or morals. Where you got your info, I have no idea. However, it is incorrect.

I am not incorrect. In the scenario that I constructed the Pope most certainly is NOT speaking Ex Cathedra, and therefore not infallible.

 

[Redbandito]

And just for the record, the argument that the “Apostles approved the canon” is not only unhistorical, it is also impossible in a practical sense. Scholars widely acknowledge that the last book of the NT was written around 90 AD by John. This is long after all the other Apostles had gone to their maker. How is it then, that they could have approved of this magical canon you’re talking about? Did they come down from Heaven and give their okay? Highly unlikely there.

Futhermore, if you are to argue that all that is required was that they be of Apostolic authorship to be canonized, you have opened up an even bigger issue. This is that there are books (i.e.Hebrews) which most modern Christian scholars (Catholic and Protestant alike) would not argue are from Apostolic origin, meaning they weren’t written by the Apostle themselves. Furthermore, there ARE books that WERE written by Apostles that aren’t canonized. Thus, your argument is both unhistorical and against common sense.

If you are to be honest, you must argue as R.C Sproul does that either: 1) We have a fallible canon of infallible books (which is contrary to logic and an oxymoron). OR 2) God gave the Church a one-time authoritative providence with the canon(which begs the question if it was really just a one-time event).

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

mercygate:

While sacred writings have always been held in honor, it seems clear that the idea of Sacred Scripture as a limited and closed Book, with a capital “B”, evolved after the struggles to determine which writings were to be accepted as “God breathed.” Since the Jews in the time of Christ did not recognize a single canon, a Jew of that day would likely answer your question by referring to the authority of his Rabbi or his rabbinic school.

So the Levitical priesthood recognized the Scripture?

How?

Blessings,
Richard

 

[IanS]

Redbandito:

This is a fallacious argument. The Jews did NOT have a canon. In fact, there was an ATTEMPT for Jews to form a canon in 90 AD, in what we refer to as the Council of Jamnia. This was obviously after the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, anything established by Jewish authorities at this time would have no authority over any Christian. Or let me rephrase that…SHOULD have no authority over any Christian.

Just to add to your comments:

We often hear from protestants about the late first century group of Jewish sages who met at a council in Jamnia to determine the canon of Jewish scripture and excluded the seven deuterocanonical books. However, these sages that met did not form a council, but an institution, which has been variously characterized as rabbinical school.

Also, If you study the data you will find that the sages barely dealt with the canon of scripture, but only discussed the canonicity of a few books, like Song of Songs end Ecclesiastes, not necessarily the deuterocanonical books. They also did not close the canon of scripture for rabbinical Judaism, for this was debated well into the third century.

Since the early Christians had used the Septuagint from the beginning, they simply ignored the decisions of the rabbinic Jews. So should we. These rabbis had no authority to tell the early Christians which canon to follow, since these were the same rabbis who rejected Christ, His Church, and the writings that would later be in the NT canon. Protestants follow a decision made by Jews who totally rejected Christ instead of the constant practice and judgment of the early Church.

 

[mercygate]

Redbandito:

. . . Futhermore, if you are to argue that all that is required was that they be of Apostolic authorship to be canonized, you have opened up an even bigger issue.

Right. Not just Hebrews, but Luke, Mark, Acts . . . . Duh.

 

[mercygate]

Redbandito:

If you are to be honest, you must argue as R.C Sproul does that either: 1) We have a fallible canon of infallible books (which is contrary to logic and an oxymoron). OR 2) God gave the Church a one-time authoritative providence with the canon(which begs the question if it was really just a one-time event).

Gotta hand it to R.C. Sproul. He IS honest. One of these days, he’s going to connect the dots for himself

 

[Redbandito]

Richard_Hurtz:

How is the believer to know that the explanation of the priest is in concert with the Magesterium? You see, the problem of private judgement never goes away no matter how “firebreaks” you want to set up.

In order to distinguish that priest is in fact teaching correctly, the lay person would already have to have apprended the correct meaning of the Magesterium’s teachings which obviates the need for the priest in this particular circumstance. And if the lay person did not understand the Magesterium’s teaching correctly how would they know the difference?.

Richard, that is really just a silly argument. A priest is not simply there to teach. That is not his only pupose. A priest is there to stand en persona christi for the Church. The laity ARE OBLIGATED to know the true teaching of the Magisterium (as Pope JPII made so clear to us), so this supposed “dilemma” that you have presented really is not one at all for the Catholic. And I still fail to see how turning to the living, breathing Magisterium, who can respond to errors being taught is “private judgement”. If you can’t see the difference between being able to question a person who can literally and physically speak to you and asking a book to talk to you, then you aren’t trying. Your argument here is shaky at best.

Richard_Hurtz:

Peace to you,
Richard

I am not incorrect. In the scenario that I constructed the Pope most certainly is NOT speaking Ex Cathedra, and therefore not infallible.

What scenario did you construct? You merely went up the chain of command and asked if each level of person in the Church was infallible. I said the Pope, as Catholicism teaches, is. You have not refuted that in the slightest. What is your claim?

 

[mercygate]

Richard_Hurtz:

So the Levitical priesthood recognized the Scripture?

How?

Blessings,
Richard

I’m not sure I understand your question. Could you clarify, please? Perhaps I am not up to your level of scholarship but I’m kind of blindsided by the introduction at this point of the Levitical priesthood.

 

[Redbandito]

Richard_Hurtz:

So the Levitical priesthood recognized the Scripture?

How?

Blessings,
Richard

What? Are you following this thread at all? The Levitical priesthood ceased to exist after the temple was destroyed. This was around 70 AD. The council of Jamnia was not even until 90 AD. If you have followed this thread, then you know that we have claimed that NO Jew “recognized the Scripture” in the way you were claiming until a minimum of 90 AD. And a good chunk of Jews still don’t recognize anything BUT the Pentateuch (including my father). You need to follow along with the discussion.

 

[mercygate]

Redbandito:

What? Are you following this thread at all? The Levitical priesthood ceased to exist after the temple was destroyed. This was around 70 AD. The council of Jamnia was not even until 90 AD. If you have followed this thread, then you know that we have claimed that NO Jew “recognized the Scripture” in the way you were claiming until a minimum of 90 AD. And a good chunk of Jews still don’t recognize anything BUT the Pentateuch (including my father). You need to follow along with the discussion.

Hey, Red! You’re right. I just thought about it. My Jewish friends never refer to “the Bible” – they refer to Torah and Tanakh (and whatever the other thing is called) but they use the word “bible” only when talking to Christians.

 

[IanS]

Richard:

I asked you a question earlier that you may have missed. I know you have a lot coming at you here, but this is a simple one:

Is it possible that there is anything someone has said, declared, or did outside of what is clearly written in the Bible that could be considered “infallible”? “Yes” or “No” will be fine.

Thank you.

 

[MysticRose]

MysticRose:

You mean to tell me that simply because the apostles themselves approved the canon is enough proof ** that Sola Scriptura is proven… Well then that would mean that they then approved where it said this wouldn’t it
2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or ** by our epistle.So I am guessing, and I would think in a logical manner here that they knew they said this wrote this and then approved this in the canon therefore disproving the Sola Scripturists idea that it is through written word alone … it is there in black and white an quite frankly it is a violation of Sola Scriptura to then negate a Scripture simply because they do not like what it has to say……

Also these might help you as well

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

also further proof of the Dueterocanon that was removed by the Protestants and the relevant Scriptures that pertain to it in the 66 books
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

I hope that ll of this helps you

Pax Christi
Mystic Rose

Why is it that the SIMPLIST Expalnation for something is often overlooked so that one may continue to argue away at something when there is so much proof otherwise that it is not funny …

Right now, Even if the apostles did in fact canonize the Holy Scriptures, when it has been proven that the last living apostle was John who died shortly after writing the Book of John

finally, we have direct evidence concerning the date of composition. The so-called “Monarchian Prologue” to the Fourth Gospel, which was probably written about the year 200 or a little later, says concerning the date of the appearance of the Gospel: “He [sc. the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed the Apocalypse on the Island of Patmos”. **The banishment of John to Patmos occurred in the last year of Domitian’s reign (i.e. about 95). A few months before his death (18 September, 96), ** the emperor had discontinued the persecution of the Christians and recalled the exiles (Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.”, III, xx, nn. 5-7). **This evidence would therefore refer the composition of the Gospel to A.D. 96 or one of the years immediately following. ** newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm#IV
Therefore this would then mean that the final apostle died before 100 AD and the canonizing that supposedly took place by the apostles then could not have. As then they were all deceased at that time… This is Historically inaccurate…

But supposing that even if it was it still would be soundly and squarely disproven by the fact that the Apostles then themselves canonized a Scripture **which violates the premise of Sola Scriptura! **

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Redbandito:

What? Are you following this thread at all? The Levitical priesthood ceased to exist after the temple was destroyed. This was around 70 AD. The council of Jamnia was not even until 90 AD. If you have followed this thread, then you know that we have claimed that NO Jew “recognized the Scripture” in the way you were claiming until a minimum of 90 AD. And a good chunk of Jews still don’t recognize anything BUT the Pentateuch (including my father). You need to follow along with the discussion.

I guess I’m not being specific enough here.

I’m not concerned at all about the council of Jamnia.

How did the Jew living in Israel in 200 B.C know which books were holy and which were not?

If there was no Infallible Church to declare which books were inspired by God, how did the Jew recognize them?

Blessings,
Richard