Answering Sola Scriptora stumper

[clem456]

Also
2 Thessalonians 2: 13-17

Stand Firm

13But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 14Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hathloved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, 17Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Mr CoC said that 1 Cor 4:6 still supports SS because once all the apostles died, their would be NO apostolic authority other than completed scripture!

Really? I would ask Mr CoC to quote book, chapter, and verse from scripture that says this. If it’s not in there (and it isn’t!), your friend is “going beyond what is written.”

 

[EnglishTeacher]

From what I’ve been able to gather the Churches of Christ are one of the many offshoots of the “2nd Great Awakening” in the USA at the turn of the 19th century–which means they are intensely “restorationist” and **claim no connection to any Protestant denomination, even by influence or inspiration, **and this despite believing in all or near-all the marks of Protestantism (sola scriptora, sola fide, private interpretation, truncated OT canon, etc…) In this, they are very much like "Trail of Blood Succesionists Baptists.

This is sheer nonsense, historically speaking. The 2nd Great Awakening was a revival of spiritual/religious fervor among the many Protestant denominations in America, particularly Baptists and Methodists. The Church of Christ denomination can be traced to the Campbellite movement around the time of the 2nd Great Awakening (as you mentioned). The people who started this new denomination had themselves broken from various Protestant denominations to start the Church of Christ.

 

[steve_b]

I’m currently debating sola scriptora with a member of the Church of Christ on a open religious forum (sometimes more like a vicious streetfight than a discussion forum ). From what I’ve been able to gather the Churches of Christ are one of the many offshoots of the “2nd Great Awakening” in the USA at the turn of the 19th century–[snip]

There’s no stumper.

I think if one examines the CoC roots, it might get those folks to cool their jets.

for example:

Paul already warned the Church of Rome about this stuff. These types confuse the naive and simple minded to follow them [Rom 16:18] out of the Church and into man made religions … like protestantism

Looking up the CoC founders, we find Walter Scott, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, as well as Baron W. Stone. Ask them, why should ANYBODY with a modecum of knowledge of history under their belt, think the CoC, founded by those guys in the 18th century, has anything to do with Our Lord’s Church?

They take the bible, which btw, is our book, written in, by. and for the Catholic Church and call it theirs. REALLY? Do they really think they are going to put one over on Jesus when they are judged by Him?
L:

Anyway, this one frequent CoC poster has come forth w/ a quote from 1 Corinthians “…you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written…” which he claims means Paul was commanding sola scriptora.

They’ve already gone beyond what is written. Show them that. Their “CoC” was NOT established by Jesus in the 1st century, it was by a few guys in the 18th century.

Forget all the other distractions they raise. Ask them, by whose authority do their founders and in extension all their followers, presume to operate under the name CoC? Especially since Jesus founded His Church 1800 years prior, of which outside Our Lord’s Church is no salvation… as scripture and Tradition shows. These folks can only trace their lineage back to the fruits of the Protestant revolt in the 16th century.
L:

I’ve countered saying “not to go beyond” means do not contradict scripture because a rejection of all Apostolic Oral Tradition would result in several scriptural contradictions–so he’s countered and asks "where does “not to go beyond” mean “contradict”

The promises made in scripture are to the Church Jesus established…the Catholic Church. Scripture is meant to draw people into the promises thereby draw people into the Catholic Church. One can’t remain on the outside of the Catholic Church and think those promises apply to them as is. That would contradict Our Lord’s Divine Will John 17:20-23 , Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21, That’s why the Church teaches the following 846
L:

Of course, since 1 Cor was a very early epistle, it would have been impossible for the Corinthians let alone anyone else to be sola scriptora with since all the NT had not been written and collated in any collection. But how do I answer this quote from 1 Cor?

The Catholic Church was established 1st, then she wrote the NT scriptures. That’s right, Peter, Paul James John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, are in the Church they write to and for.

• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…"

iow the Church ἐκκλησίατῆς] throughout all καθ’kata ὅληςholos] is the Kataholos Church = Catholic ChurchThe English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

• St Ignatius Bp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., ordained by apostles, disciple of St John the apostle, was thought to be the first to called the Church the Catholic Church in writing Epistle to the Smyrnæans and schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians Ignatius is writing about what is already established.
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Muratorian canon earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]Chapter 3
• Cyprian~250 a.d. Epistle 54
• The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
• etc etc etc

 

[Isaiah45_9]

By the way, don’t be tempted to use this as a “gotcha” statement. That will only drive people away. Use it cautiously as a tool for honest discussion. Honestly ask the person to use SS (their definition of it) to solve this. Then gently point out that what they are doing is placing Scripture in the context of some person’s understanding of it…some interpretation. In other words, the interpretation is what they are adhering to, not the actual Scripture passage. That interpretation is the result of a “tradition”. So, now the TRUE question becomes…“whose tradition is the right one?”.

Thank you! BTW, I really enjoy your blog! Keep up the good work and God Bless you.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Update on the continuing exchanges between Mr. CoC and myself.

Once again he asked (thats a favorite tactic of his, constantly asking the same question of me and other Catholic posters) where “do not go beyond” meant “don’t contradict scripture” and once again I spelled out how all the preceeding verses and Paul’s quoting of the OT **ONLY **refered to pridefull boasting causing division and in no way could be extended into a prooftext for sola scriptora.

Mr CoC dropped that tactic and then tried and even more ludicrous “prooftext” for SS which I was able to answer right away, name Ephesians 3:1-6

1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles-- 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6* that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel*
**
I confronted Mr CoC with the fact he was claiming SS from a LOST and SINGLE prior letter to the Ephesians (or perhaps to someone else) and Paul right away states that it is the “Gentiles are fellow heirs…” was the message in the letter, which while important is hardly the the main point of the Gospel. As one might expect, Mr. CoC declined to comment further.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m currently debating sola scriptora with a member of the Church of Christ on a open religious forum (sometimes more like a vicious streetfight than a discussion forum ). From what I’ve been able to gather the Churches of Christ are one of the many offshoots of the “2nd Great Awakening” in the USA at the turn of the 19th century–which means they are intensely “restorationist” and claim no connection to any Protestant denomination, even by influence or inspiration, and this despite believing in all or near-all the marks of Protestantism (sola scriptora, sola fide, private interpretation, truncated OT canon, etc…) In this, they are very much like "Trail of Blood Succesionists Baptists.

Anyway, this one frequent CoC poster has come forth w/ a quote from 1 Corinthians “…you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written…” which he claims means Paul was commanding sola scriptora. I’ve countered saying “not to go beyond” means do not contradict scripture because a rejection of all Apostolic Oral Tradition would result in several scriptural contradictions–so he’s countered and asks "where does “not to go beyond” mean “contradict”

Of course, since 1 Cor was a very early epistle, it would have been impossible for the Corinthians let alone anyone else to be sola scriptora with since all the NT had not been written and collated in any collection. But how do I answer this quote from 1 Cor?

This argument has always seemed desperate to me.

(1) There are numerous translations mainly because of various manuscript readings. Furthermore, in Greek, the word “think” in KJV or “go” in other versions is not present in any manuscript. Phroneo (to think) was added by the Textus Receptus. It is in no manuscript from which its compiler drew nor any of the older ones available today. The KJV drew from the Textus Receptus. It has in fact been (and the irony is great!) ADDED to the Greek and is GOING BEYOND what is written to give some sense to a very difficult passage that even many Protestant commentators hesitate to explain. As an example, James B. Moffatt, a Protestant scholar, in his New Testament: A New Translation refused to translate this phrase in 1 Cor 4:6 stating in a note, “The text and the meaning of the phrase are beyond recovery.” (p. 250) Same note on the same verse by same author in The Bible: James Moffatt Translation (p. 208).

(2) Passing over the textual questions, the claim here (1 Cor 4:6-7) is that Paul, at the moment he is writing this passage, consciously intends to teach sola scriptura to his Corinthian readers. That is, he knows that this is the method God wills for humanity to transmit the whole of His revealed truth; it is to be the sure standard for sound belief, and he intends this to be part of his teaching. So he wants his Corinthian readers to go by the Bible alone from this point on.

(a) If we can take this single passage as Paul formally teaching the doctrine of sola scriptura, then we have at least as much biblical cause to take: --Paul’s praising the Corinthians in the same letter for following traditions that he himself follows and hands on (1 Cor 11:2); --his teaching that we should follow unwritten tradition(s) (2 Thes 2:15; 3:6); --his statement that faith comes from what is heard (Rom 10:7); --his charge to Timothy to guard the sacred trust (2 Tim 1:14); --his charge to hand the faith on to others so they can teach yet others (2 Tim 2:2; cf 1 Thes 1:8)–all these as warrant for tradition as the Catholic Church understands it. Any one of these could also be absolutized to make the opposite claim: we need scripture and tradition and Church as the Catholic Church understands it.

(b) Furthermore, given all the passages above in Paul’s letters making a claim contrary to sola scriptura (including one in the same letter!), it strains credibility to think that this utterly central principle which, it is supposed, he held and intended to communicate (the very source and test of truth for all humanity down through history) would get such a short treatment with so much evidence to the contrary throughout his letters.

 

[CaptFun]

Anyway, this one frequent CoC poster has come forth w/ a quote from 1 Corinthians “…you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written…” which he claims means Paul was commanding sola scriptora. I’ve countered saying “not to go beyond” means do not contradict scripture because a rejection of all Apostolic Oral Tradition would result in several scriptural contradictions–so he’s countered and asks "where does “not to go beyond” mean “contradict”

Of course, since 1 Cor was a very early epistle, it would have been impossible for the Corinthians let alone anyone else to be sola scriptora with since all the NT had not been written and collated in any collection. But how do I answer this quote from 1 Cor?

Your just previous sentence is a good start. Anything written past 1 Corinthians (like 2 Corinthians for instance) would then be … what? Heresy? Why is it in his Bible then?

So – that “…you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written…” quote must be understood as TRUE … but in a different sense … yes?

When did the rule of Sola Scriptura begin? Since from Pentecost on the apostles were doing all sorts of “unbiblical” per the Old Testament things - yet working miracles to demonstrate God’s power nonetheless.

Scripture is not a person like Jesus who can make claims about Himself.

But if we “speak Protestant” for a minute and say “what claims does scripture make for itself …” as if it were a person (which some of them do with the idea of “unbiblical” and other authoritative sounding terms).

Here is ONE:

16 All scripture is inspired by God < A fact; the fact of WHAT

and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, < And that leads to the question of “by WHOM”? The Church, that teaches, corrects and trains with authority.

17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. < good work! This claim of scripture about itself is a path that leads to the the phrase "for every good work"! Which is good to remember when speaking of “Faith alone” < an intellectual construct and come to think of it a term that is found but once in scripture … negatively.

That would be in James, not that we should get into the habit of pretending that proof texts negate the power of the Church or its authority.

James 2:24 See how a person is justified by works*** and not by faith alone.***

And consider this scripture concerning Jesus, (and I contend, later the Church), and those who reject them (even though they “search the scriptures”).

**John 5:36 ** The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me.

37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form,

38 and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent.

39** You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them**; even they testify on my behalf.

40 But you do not want to come to me to have life.

Here scriptures point to Jesus who has been sent by the Father. But the “scripture scholars” miss Him … and do not believe in the one the Father sent.

NOW the Son has sent the Church.

Could the Church not make these statements to those "scripture scholars’ who do not see that the scriptures “testify on my behalf …” should the Church speak as Jesus has done?

As it too has been sent and some don’t listen – and has works that JESUS sent it to accomplish though some “do not believe in the one whom He sent …”

Though some search the scriptures to criticize and reject her, the Church could also say
" … the scriptures point to me!"

And then lament, because they WOULD be welcome … " … But you do not want to come to me to have life!"

And Paul declared (as part of scripture):

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Q: What does scripture say we should know “first of all”?

2 Peter 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,

Authoritatively spoken by the first Pope (but maybe don’t say so til after your friend converts)

AND speaking of the need for apostolic teaching (as witnessed to ABOUT scripture BY scripture) … this is one to ponder.

Acts 8:26 - 40 the critical passages per this thread would be:

Acts 8:27

So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,

28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.

29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”

30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

31

He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

Going beyond what was written possibly was a specific local instruction in Corinth. That’d make sense of it. Not Sola Scriptura.

 

[CaptFun]

By the way, don’t be tempted to use this as a “gotcha” statement. That will only drive people away. Use it cautiously as a tool for honest discussion. Honestly ask the person to use SS (their definition of it) to solve this. Then gently point out that what they are doing is placing Scripture in the context of some person’s understanding of it…some interpretation. In other words, the interpretation is what they are adhering to, not the actual Scripture passage. That interpretation is the result of a “tradition”. So, now the TRUE question becomes…“whose tradition is the right one?”.

Thank you! Yes!

While sharing some scriptures that point to and explain Catholic teaching (or even when refuting errors as scripture tells us Church leaders are to do) … all in charity … no hollering:

***“GOTCHA!” ***

Imagining doing it here should be fun enough. :tsktsk:

Having the knowledge one can progress to speaking in charity and patience in a calm even matter of fact tone that does not make the other lose face or “be defeated” (as if it were a contest). Presume that other is a quite sincere brother or sister - seeking Christ and insights – and not a snide Catholic baiter (for example).

Snide is also a good word to remember when enumerating things we don’t want to be as well. :yup: :hey_bud: Me? Pfft! I’ll do snide all day long!

 

[guanophore]

,,,a quote from 1 Corinthians "...***you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written***..." which he claims means Paul was commanding sola scriptora. I've countered saying "not to go beyond" means do not contradict scripture because a rejection of all Apostolic Oral Tradition would result in several scriptural contradictions--so he's countered and asks "where does "not to go beyond" mean "contradict"

Of course, since 1 Cor was a very early epistle, it would have been impossible for the Corinthians let alone anyone else to be sola scriptora with since all the NT had not been written and collated in any collection. But how do I answer this quote from 1 Cor?

Your point is the best, that if we did not “go beyond what is written” in 1 Cor, we would not HAVE an NT at all!

But most immediately, it is in the context:

1 Cor 4:6-7

6 I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, “Nothing beyond what is written,” so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another.

He has written about himself and Apollos, and his point is that they not be puffed up.
“What is written” is his examples.

Obviously Paul did not mean what he is trying to make it mean, or he would be contradicting himself saying:

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

He is not saying only the written is valid.

 

[onenow1]

I’m currently debating sola scriptora with a member of the Church of Christ on a open religious forum (sometimes more like a vicious streetfight than a discussion forum ). From what I’ve been able to gather the Churches of Christ are one of the many offshoots of the “2nd Great Awakening” in the USA at the turn of the 19th century–which means they are intensely “restorationist” and claim no connection to any Protestant denomination, even by influence or inspiration, and this despite believing in all or near-all the marks of Protestantism (sola scriptora, sola fide, private interpretation, truncated OT canon, etc…) In this, they are very much like "Trail of Blood Succesionists Baptists.

Anyway, this one frequent CoC poster has come forth w/ a quote from 1 Corinthians “…you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written…” which he claims means Paul was commanding sola scriptora. I’ve countered saying “not to go beyond” means do not contradict scripture because a rejection of all Apostolic Oral Tradition would result in several scriptural contradictions–so he’s countered and asks "where does “not to go beyond” mean “contradict”

Of course, since 1 Cor was a very early epistle, it would have been impossible for the Corinthians let alone anyone else to be sola scriptora with since all the NT had not been written and collated in any collection. But how do I answer this quote from 1 Cor?

HI,
. The Bible clearly says it is useful for teaching, 2Timothy 3:16.
Useful means just that, and it does not mean all encompassing or Bible only.

2Tim1:6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

God Bless

 

[RaiseMeUp]

Do not go beyond what is written

I love when Protestants and others such - try to use this scripture to defend Sola Scriptura. The problem is the different translations - especially with that particular verse. If you research you will find that the original Greek text doesn’t even say that. It says "me phroneo hoper hina hos grapho" which when correctly translated says not to set affection above what is described. The scripture in reality is warning not to take pride in one man over against another - has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.