Answering Sola Scriptora stumper

[Lion_of_Narnia]

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?

 

[catholictiger]

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?

The worst thing you can do when debating a protestant is to get into what I like to call a who can quote scripture quicker battle. Its a never ending downward spiral into a street fight like you say. Use NON scriptural arguments agianst sola scriptura. Ask him things like this, how do the early Christians who didn’t have the entirety of scripture compiled together know what to believe and what to follow? How do you know it must be 4 Gospels and not 5, 3, 2, 7 etc. How do you know that these four gospels writters are the correct ones?

if he answers anything that isn’t from scripture he is contradicting himself. So you say we can only believe what is written in the scriptures but you use things outside of scriptures to say what should be in scriptures.

Try to lead him to contradict himself once he notices this, due to the rule of non contradiction he must resolve that conflict. He will either move away from sola scriptua or come up with some rationalization to defend his view.

Also never be scared to ask him the same question he asked you. Say something like I’m not sure how it doesn’t support sola scriptua and let him describe it to you, see if it lines up with the other parts of scripture (all of it)

But again don’t fall into a scripture qouting battles they never end up well, because you are using what your arguing against to argue against it. Try arguing that God exists by arguing against his existence. Don’t use Sola scriptua to argue that its an absurd practice. Show them how it must be more than just Sola Scriptua for knowing what we must believe.

God’s revelaiton is reveld through two instraments, Scripture and Tradition, trying to only use one to prove the other is very difficult.

 

[po18guy]

From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 6. These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, and to Apollo. Literally, these things have I transfigured in me and Apollo, that is, I have represented the divisions and disputes among you, as if it were by your contending, whether I, or Apollo, or Cephas were the best preachers, without naming those, as I might do, who are the true causes of these divisions, by striving who should be thought men of the greatest and brightest parts. — That in us, and by our example, who have no such proud disputes, you might learn that one be not puffed up against the other, and above that which is written, against the admonitions given in the holy Scriptures of being humble: or against what I have now written to you, that we must strive for nothing, but to be the faithful ministers of God, and not seek the esteem of men. (Witham) — It is the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and likewise of Estius, that St. Paul, Apollo, and Cephas were not the real causes of the divisions that existed amongst the new converts at Corinth, but that in making use of these names, he wished to teach them, that if it was unlawful to keep up these divisions even for the sake of the apostles, how far should they be from doing any thing of this kind for those whose authority was much less in the Church. But Calmet is of opinion, that the divisions amongst the Corinthians were certainly on account of Paul, Apollo, Cephas, and perhaps some others, whose names are not mentioned.

Ver. 7. For who distinguisheth, or hath distinguished thee from another? He speaks particularly to those proud, vain preachers: if thou hast greater talents than another man, who hath given them to thee, or to any one, but God, who is the giver, and the author of every gift and perfection? This is not only true of the gift of preaching, but of all gifts and graces; so that St. Augustine makes use of it in several places against the Pelagians, to shew that it is by grace only, that one man is preferred before another, and not by, or for his own merits. (Witham)

Your adversary, as can be expected, is cherry picking translations for a version which supports his contention. Check some of the most common English translations, and you will see that they come out quite differently: biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%204:6

You might point out that SS puts the individual ego in charge of interpreting God’s word, and has produced nothing but division and weakening of the Body of Christ. Christ Himself said that you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16, 20), and the fruits of sola scriptura are division.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[loozcannon]

Have you checked the Scripture Catholic site? That thing is chocked full of answers.

 

[loozcannon]

I’d also ask him for a reference to the Holy Trinity in the bible, per chapter and verse, along the lines of what Catholictiger was saying.

 

[randyherdes]

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?

you might go on u tube and spend a few hours studying both sides

for example Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), Part 1 of 3 (R.C. Sproul)
youtu.be/j45czYrPJfI

 

[po18guy]

you might go on u tube and spend a few hours studying both sides

for example Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), Part 1 of 3 (R.C. Sproul)
youtu.be/j45czYrPJfI

Let me re-phrase this: Jesus did not found His Church on the bible. Before you trust any novel doctrine, such as bible alone, it is best to study and ponder how we got the bible.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Thank you all for your very informative responses. I’ll get back w/ how Mr. CoC reacts.

 

[Father_Read]

Lion of Narnia,

EricFilmer (a.k.a. Fr. Eric Filmer of the Ask an Apologist Forum) once gave a very detailed Catholic response to attempts at using 1Corinithians as a biblical defense of Sola Scriptura. You can read it in the following posts (although you may want to grab a cup of coffee first, seeing as this entails a good bit of reading):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7974653&postcount=619

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7974655&postcount=620

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7974658&postcount=621

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7974670&postcount=622

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

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?

From my Ignatius RSV study Bible:
"Paul cautions believers to stay within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures. He is referring specifically to the string of OT warnings about boasting quoted earlier in the letter(1:19; 31; 3:19-20). Paul’s purpose here is to halt the damaging effects of arrogance in Corinth, as indicated by the clarification that follows. Interpretations of this verse that suggest that Paul is restricting the basis for Christian doctrine and morals to what is explicitly set forth in the books of the Bible(sola scriptura) are misleading and untenable. Nothing in the context points to such a broad concern, and in any case Paul insists elsewhere that even the inspired preaching of the Apostles is on par with the written word of God(1 Thes 2:13; 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6).

 

[pablope]

Lion of Narnia,

EricFilmer (a.k.a. Fr. Eric Filmer of the Ask an Apologist Forum) once gave a very detailed Catholic response to attempts at using 1Corinithians as a biblical defense of Sola Scriptura. You can read it in the following posts (although you may want to grab a cup of coffee first, seeing as this entails a good bit of reading):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7974653&postcount=619

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7974655&postcount=620

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7974658&postcount=621

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7974670&postcount=622

I was going to recommend the same.

But your initial rebuttal is spot on too.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Here’s a quick, easy answer.

Before you can determine the validity of any interpretation of First Corinthians, you must first accept that the epistle is scripture. Ask your friend to show you where in the Bible it says First Corninthians is scripture. He will, of course, be unable to.

Since one must go outside the Bible to even determine the canonicity of First Corninthians, his interpretation that the verse supports* sola scriptura* contradicts his necessity to go outside scripture.

In other words, he must go outside scripture to even get to a verse that he claims says we should not go outside scripture.

 

[Zachary]

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?

Wouldnt sola scriptura also mean that Jesus did not exist from ages 12-30? The bible speaks little or nothing of his life. It says nothing about Jesus bathing or breastfeeding, either. I just find s.s. to be illogical at best. Maybe I’m missing the point, but why would Jesus have been necessary if God could just write out a manual?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The worst thing you can do when debating a protestant is to get into what I like to call a who can quote scripture quicker battle. Its a never ending downward spiral into a street fight like you say. Use NON scriptural arguments agianst sola scriptura. Ask him things like this, how do the early Christians who didn’t have the entirety of scripture compiled together know what to believe and what to follow? How do you know it must be 4 Gospels and not 5, 3, 2, 7 etc. How do you know that these four gospels writters are the correct ones?

if he answers anything that isn’t from scripture he is contradicting himself. So you say we can only believe what is written in the scriptures but you use things outside of scriptures to say what should be in scriptures.

Try to lead him to contradict himself once he notices this, due to the rule of non contradiction he must resolve that conflict. He will either move away from sola scriptua or come up with some rationalization to defend his view.

Already here: It’s called the hermeneutical principle. IOW, they can change what sola scriptura really means whenever they arrive to a dead end or a contradiction, lol.

Also never be scared to ask him the same question he asked you. Say something like I’m not sure how it doesn’t support sola scriptua and let him describe it to you, see if it lines up with the other parts of scripture (all of it)

But again don’t fall into a scripture qouting battles they never end up well, because you are using what your arguing against to argue against it. Try arguing that God exists by arguing against his existence. Don’t use Sola scriptua to argue that its an absurd practice. Show them how it must be more than just Sola Scriptua for knowing what we must believe.

God’s revelaiton is reveld through two instraments, Scripture and Tradition, trying to only use one to prove the other is very difficult.

 

[ahs]

Already here: It’s called the hermeneutical principle. IOW, they can change what sola scriptura really means whenever they arrive to a dead end or a contradiction, lol.

Yes, this is true, but I have found that when pressed for a definition a what THEY believe SS is, you can force them to defend it the same way. Make then demonstrate SS, and what they end up doing is 1) reverting to some tradition/opinion/teaching of man, 2) accepting that SS doesn’t work, or 3) getting angry and moving on.

I stole this from example from a fella, and so far, no matter what the person’s definition of SS has been (up until they necessarily have to resort to accepting an opinion/teaching/tradition of man) it has yet to be demonstrated:

*Two Christian groups, both adhering to SS (whatever the “real” SS is) hold directly opposing views on a doctrine that they both deem relevant to salvation (OSAS, or you don’t even have to name one). They both use SS to defend their directly opposing views. Using SS, resolve the conundrum. *

 

[ahs]

*Two Christian groups, both adhering to SS (whatever the “real” SS is) hold directly opposing views on a doctrine that they both deem relevant to salvation (OSAS, or you don’t even have to name one). They both use SS to defend their directly opposing views. Using SS, resolve the conundrum. *

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?”.

 

[clem456]

I would never say this to my protestant friends in this blunt way, but sola scriptura is absurd for a Christian to believe.

Most Christians would agree that God gave us the the Old Testament, the law.
But if the law was solely sufficient, why then did God become flesh to enter this confusion?? We had the scriptures, if it’s sola, then why is Jesus even necessary? We could self justify through acceptance of the written word.

As a Christian, your friend should believe in the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The whole point of Christianity is that sola scriptura is not enough, the law will not save us. It is necessary to know Jesus Christ as a real and living personal God.

How do we know Jesus Christ? Tape recorded conversations? No. Forensic evidence? No. How about oral tradition? Yes. Flesh and blood people, inspired by the Holy Spirit, handing down what Jesus gave us. It’s important to remember that Jesus entrusted his mission to flesh and blood people. He did not conquer the world for his father, and he did not simply write his words into a book and hand them to us.

Jesus knew the Scriptures, quoted them in fact. Yet, God himself, who is THE Word, did not look to the scriptures as the essence of God’s saving action. That’s over-spiritualizing (there’s a better word for that I have forgotten). What’s the essence? Sacrificial love. Trusting others to help pass the word through tradition. Submission to authority. Obedience. In a nutshell, the cross is the best argument against sola scriptura. These are qualities that Jesus lived, yet somehow we can be aloof from them? Hardly. Jesus was full of trust in his father, AND the people he entrusted (his disciples, you and I) to help reveal himself. That is so much more than words on a page (although that is part of his revelation also, just to clarify).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Here is the aftermath of my re-engagement w/ Mr. CoC:

1. He asked his question again, attempting to stump me. I responded with my already prepared postion (Some may call this “copy and paste” unfair or even invalid because it is “c&p”, but debaters use already pre-written position statements all the time–and also reherse in advance answers to likely questions) At first Mr. CoC attempted to ignore me until I and another Catholic poster brought his attention to it
2. He first tried to belittle it and at the same time backpedaled and claimed he never said 1 Cor 4:6 is a proof text of sola scriptora! (He did )
3. In contradiction to what He said above, 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! (I am already well prepared to defend the continuing existence of Apostolic Authority, through their sucessors the Bishops, by scriptural and ECF evidence. Of course, since the CoC is "restorationist’ they have no choice but to willfully deny the existence of apostolic authority in the Catholic Church (but they have a LOT of problems demonstrating where the CoC was for 1600 years before the 2nd Great Awakening in the USA)

 

[clem456]

Cor 4 in no way supports sola scriptura. Read in context it refutes it.
He’s talking about what it means to be an apostle. Notice right at the start the words “those entrusted” (ie people, not books).
This is the sort of problem that results when taking literal bits of scripture out of context.

The Nature of True Apostleship

4 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as **those entrusted **with the mysteries God has revealed. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may **learn from us the meaning of **the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have begun to reign—and that without us! How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you! 9 For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. 10 We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! 11 To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. 12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment.

Paul’s Appeal and Warning

14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. **He will remind you of my way of life **

Here is Paul, who is writing what would be scripture, emphasizing his way of life in Christ Jesus, not the actual words he is writing.

in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

18 Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. 21 What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?

 

[pablope]

Here is the aftermath of my re-engagement w/ Mr. CoC:

1. In contradiction to what He said above, 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! (I am already well prepared to defend the continuing existence of Apostolic Authority, through their sucessors the Bishops, by scriptural and ECF evidence. Of course, since the CoC is "restorationist’ they have no choice but to willfully deny the existence of apostolic authority in the Catholic Church (but they have a LOT of problems demonstrating where the CoC was for 1600 years before the 2nd Great Awakening in the USA)

Give him this passage:

from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

The passage says to know the truth…seek out the apostles, listen to the apostles…not read the Bible.

So in accordance with the passage above, how would Mr CoC determine the truth? Who would he listen to?

So in today’s time, how is one to know the truth, to know the true spirit…if there are no apostolic successors?