Burden of proof in Sola Scriptura

[Leon_Miguel]

Dan-Man916:

When the New Testament began to be written, it was addressed to people who had already been taught the faith through oral preaching, and (mainly in the case of the various epistles) it’s purpose was to clarify issues or correct problems, not be an exhaustive primer of the faith. Also, keep in mind that the books were written to a specific church or individual, and as a consequence, an epistle that might be widely read in one region might be completely unknown to another.

Just on this point - in a discussion with a Protestant I said that if Paul had known that the bible was to be used as the sole source of religious information then would he not have written a very different set of letters? A bible that was to be the sole source for the next two millenia would have been structured more like the catechism with adequate definitions of all the terms to ensure that only a single interpretation was possible - for example he could have listed the sacraments and described their usage and functions - rather than writing about very specific and local issues such as women wearing long hair that may or may not be relevant to later readers.

However, her reply was simply that was the way God wanted it, regardless of the difficulties that sola scriptura presents.

 

[Lazerlike42]

1 Clem 1:1 By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled.

…

1 Clem 58:1 Let us therefore be obedient unto His most holy and glorious Name, thereby escaping the threatenings which were spoken of old by the mouth of Wisdom against them which disobey, that we may dwell safely, trusting in the most holy Name of His majesty.

Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit,
who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who
with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without
regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto Him for ever and ever. Amen.

But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger;

1Clem 59:2
but we shall be guiltless of this sin. And we will ask, with
instancy of prayer and supplication, that the Creator of the universe may guard intact unto the end the number that hath been numbered of His elect throughout the whole world, through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from gnorance to the full knowledge of the glory of His Name.

…

1Clem 63:2
For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience
unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out
the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty
which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.

1Clem 63:3
And we have also sent faithful and prudent men that have walked among us from youth unto old age unblamably, who shall also be witnesses between you and us.

1Clem 63:4
And this we have done that ye might know that we have had, and still have, every solicitude that ye should be speedily at peace.

That sounds an awful lot like something a Pope would write, doesn’t it? It even has the “royal we.” But the kicker is that this is a letter written from the Bishop of Rome to the Corinthians. Corinth is nowhere near Rome, and the bishop of Rome would have no business whatsoever writing to and expecting obedience from the Corinthiansif he were simply an ordinary bishop. What’s more, he makes it clear that he is sorry that it took so long to write to the Corinthians, as if they would have been expecting it.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Lazerlike42:

My point is that I believe the Bible because I have a divinely instituted Church to tell me that it is really the word of God.

And how do you know that the Church that tells you this is “divinely instituted”?

God Bless,
Richard

 

[Lazerlike42]

Richard_Hurtz:

And how do you know that the Church that tells you this is “divinely instituted”?

God Bless,
Richard

History greatly supports the existence of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles. What’s more, we are living in a society where Christianity has been under attack for hundreds of years. Given that it has persevered and that all of the arguements against it prove to be insufficient, one can say that Christianity is true. That being said, the history overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Catholic Church is that same church which first arose under the leadership of the Apostles all those years ago. It is not even close. As Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

The problem with your question is that you are asking me to prove Christianity itself, but that is not our difference. We both believe in Christianity, and we both believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I am not going to try to prove Christianity, because it is a much deeper task than I have time for and it is not really what you want; you already believe in it. My point is one that applies to those whom already assent to the truth of Christianity.

My point, at its most basic level, is that the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church. If one believes in the Bible, one has to believe in the Catholic Church. For example: Mormons believe in the book of Mormon. Could a Mormon believe in this book without also believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet? If one denies Joseph Smith, he no longer has any reason to believe in the Book of Mormon. If a person puts faith in a rule of faith, that person must also put faith in the source of that rule. A rule can no more be seperated from its source than can the branch of a tree be seperated from its root.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Lazerlike42:

History greatly supports the existence of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles. What’s more, we are living in a society where Christianity has been under attack for hundreds of years. Given that it has persevered and that all of the arguements against it prove to be insufficient, one can say that Christianity is true. That being said, the history overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Catholic Church is that same church which first arose under the leadership of the Apostles all those years ago. It is not even close. As Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

The problem with your question is that you are asking me to prove Christianity itself, but that is not our difference. We both believe in Christianity, and we both believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I am not going to try to prove Christianity, because it is a much deeper task than I have time for and it is not really what you want; you already believe in it. My point is one that applies to those whom already assent to the truth of Christianity.

My point, at its most basic level, is that the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church. If one believes in the Bible, one has to believe in the Catholic Church. For example: Mormons believe in the book of Mormon. Could a Mormon believe in this book without also believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet? If one denies Joseph Smith, he no longer has any reason to believe in the Book of Mormon. If a person puts faith in a rule of faith, that person must also put faith in the source of that rule. A rule can no more be seperated from its source than can the branch of a tree be seperated from its root.

I’m not asking you to ‘prove Christianity’. What I asked was how do you know that the RCC was ‘divinely instituted’, as you claimed.

For a claim to be believable it has to be verifiable in some way.
You have offered no way to verify that claim.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[Lazerlike42]

Richard_Hurtz:

I’m not asking you to ‘prove Christianity’. What I asked was how do you know that the RCC was ‘divinely instituted’, as you claimed.

For a claim to be believable it has to be verifiable in some way.
You have offered no way to verify that claim.

Blessings,
Richard

My point is that I don’t have to prove that here. You believe in the Bible. The Bible came from the Catholic Church. If you disbelieve the Church, you disbelieve the authority from which the Bible’s authority came. Without it, there is no reason to think it is inspired.

The Book of Mormon was given by Joseph Smith. If a Mormon disbelieves Joseph Smith, he disbelieves the authority from which the Book of Mormon comes. Without him, there is no reason to hold the Book of Mormon is inspired.

If a Muslim disbelieves Mohammed, he disbelieves the authority from which the Koran came from. Without him, there is no reason to hold the Koran to be inspired.

When a person receives revisions to the town by-laws in the mail, he believes that they are authoritative because he believes that the town has the authority to declare them authoritative. If he does not believe his town has authority, he has no reason to believe the by-laws are.

Submitting to the Bible without submitting to the Catholic Church is like submitting to a police lieutenant without submitting to the police department.

 

[jim1130]

Richard_Hurtz:

And you have to realize that if you’re evangelizing them and telling them that Sola Scriptura is an invalid rule of faith then the burden of proof lies with you.

Again: “He who asserts must prove.”

Peace to you,
Richard

So, in the Transfiguration, when Elijah and Moses met with Jesus, do you think that it was actually a summit for the three of them to discuss how to write the Bible? Perhaps Jesus said to them “You two take the OT and I will take the NT”? Maybe they were on a deadline because they realized all those poor people who lived without a Bible were doomed? I mean, seriously, SOMEWHERE in the Bible is the word “Bible” and SOMEWHERE in the Bible it outlines ALL the books to include.

OSAS was introduced because it went against Rome. It is like an urban myth that suddenly becomes reality.

 

[Ignatius]

trumpet152:

Take a look at this argument for Sola Scriptura. I’ve never heard it before.

Any quick responses?

Hello brother Trumpet. It is very easy to soundly trounce this false argument. Not only do Catholics accept the Holy Scripture as Divinely inspired, in fact, it was the Catholic Church which first declared it to be so. Here is the letter from Pope St. Clement in the first Century.

Even earlier, the inerrance of Holy Scripture was declared by Pope St. Clement in the first Century.

From Jurgen’s *Faith of the Early Fathers, *Vol 1, doctrinal index:

“No error can be found in the Sacred Scritpures”

The first passages cited by Jurgens is from the 1st Epistle of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians. St. Clement was the third pope after St. Peter.

St. Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians (ca. AD 80): “Brethren, be contentious and zealous for the things which lead to salvation! You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and are of the Holy Spirit. You well know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them. [45,1]”

Additionally, it was the Catholic Church which determined, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which decreed and declared which of the writings are inspired and what books are to be included in the New Testament.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

*It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. *
*. . .the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. *
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

*The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I… *AD 393:

*The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…**AD 397: *

The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church’s teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God and God is Truth…than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[javelin]

SemperJase:

SS folks claim this verse as their proof:

2 Tim 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

I grew up in an evangelical church and believed this verse proved SS. About a year and a half ago, I realized that the verse did not say that scripture (i.e. the books of the bible) were the ONLY thing profitable for teaching, correction, or training in righteousness.

Saying Paul was making the case for sola scriptura is reading more into the verse than is there. It is making a leap in logic.

You can use this quote, but most fundamentalists will respond that you left out the following verse, which is crucial:

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

True that Paul didn’t say “only Scrpiture is profitable”, but if Scripture is capable of making the man of God perfect, then nothing more is needed – only Scripture. What’s better than perfect?

By the way, I don’t believe in sola scriptura personally. I just want you to be aware of the counter-arguments so you are prepared when brining this up.

Peace,
javelin

 

[jim1130]

javelin:

You can use this quote, but most fundamentalists will respond that you left out the following verse, which is crucial:

True that Paul didn’t say “only Scrpiture is profitable”, but if Scripture is capable of making the man of God perfect, then nothing more is needed – only Scripture. What’s better than perfect?

By the way, I don’t believe in sola scriptura personally. I just want you to be aware of the counter-arguments so you are prepared when brining this up.

Peace,
javelin

What is exactly meant by profitable? That we cannot do without it?

 

[javelin]

jim1130:

What is exactly meant by profitable? That we cannot do without it?

Not necessarily. The point they would make is that if Scripture can make a man perfect, nothing more is needed. Sacred Scripture becomes the simplest core of Christianity. Sure, other things can help aid us on the path of holiness, but none of it is necessary if you have Sacred Scripture, for through SS you can become perfect.

Peace,
javelin

 

[jim1130]

javelin:

Not necessarily. The point they would make is that if Scripture can make a man perfect, nothing more is needed. Sacred Scripture becomes the simplest core of Christianity. Sure, other things can help aid us on the path of holiness, but none of it is necessary if you have Sacred Scripture, for through SS you can become perfect.

Peace,
javelin

Thank you. I appreciate your reply. Peace.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

jim1130:

So, in the Transfiguration, when Elijah and Moses met with Jesus, do you think that it was actually a summit for the three of them to discuss how to write the Bible? Perhaps Jesus said to them “You two take the OT and I will take the NT”? Maybe they were on a deadline because they realized all those poor people who lived without a Bible were doomed? I mean, seriously, SOMEWHERE in the Bible is the word “Bible” and SOMEWHERE in the Bible it outlines ALL the books to include.

OSAS was introduced because it went against Rome. It is like an urban myth that suddenly becomes reality.

Sure and “somewhere in ‘tradition’” is the “perpetual virginity” of Mary. Talk about your ‘urban myths’ becoming reality

 

[jim1130]

Richard_Hurtz:

Sure and “somewhere in ‘tradition’” is the “perpetual virginity” of Mary. Talk about your ‘urban myths’ becoming reality

Why is Mary’s perpetual virginity so hard to believe? If you were married to mary and the Angel of the Lord appeared to you to say that Mary was giving birth to the Son of God, would you not consider her holy and blessed and re-evaluate your role for God?

 

[Redbandito]

trumpet152:

Take a look at this argument for Sola Scriptura. I’ve never heard it before.

Any quick responses?

Well, there are a couple of points I would make on this line of argument. First, since we don’t accept sola scriptura, we cannot be obligated to prove our position on sola scriptura by the Bible alone. Thus, we can use Church teaching and the history of Christianity as sources to prove our point.

This leads us to the second point, which is that if they want to obligate us to prove our position by the Bible alone, they must first prove sola scriptura. This brings us back full circle to the point that many people on this thread have already made, which is “he who asserts, must prove”. C.S.Lewis said it best in Abolition of Man, “Wherever traditional values are challenged, as if the burden of proof lay upon them, we have taken the wrong position”. Since history shows quite clearly that the early Christians did not believe in sola scriptura, the ones who are challenging the Church have the burden of proof. Thus, not only must they prove it, but they must prove it with the Bible alone. If they can’t, it is a self-refuting proposition.

 

[Redbandito]

Richard_Hurtz:

Sure and “somewhere in ‘tradition’” is the “perpetual virginity” of Mary. Talk about your ‘urban myths’ becoming reality

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary has nothing to do with sola scriptura. This is one of James White’s tactics. It is a red herring. “If I get into trouble with sola scriptura, I’ll bring up Mary, or the that Catholics believe you can work your way to Heaven”. These accusations have nothing to do with this subject. Debate sola scriptura, and then we can debate Mary. But you are just lobbing accusations like hand grenades at the Church with this form of argumentation so that we can never really pin your argument down. It is at best a poor tactic for seeking truth, and at worst it is entirely dishonest.

 

[SemperJase]

javelin:

True that Paul didn’t say “only Scrpiture is profitable”, but if Scripture is capable of making the man of God perfect, then nothing more is needed – only Scripture. What’s better than perfect?

My reply is that the previous verse says “profitable” not “sufficient.”

A weight lifting program is profitable for physical fitness. It is not sufficient for perfect fitness including cardiovascular health though.

You have a point, we must consider the verses in context. That means we need to look at verse 17 as you suggested as well as verses 14 and 15. Those answer a significant question. What did Paul mean by scripture? His definition of scripture didn’t include the four gospels which hadn’t been written yet or even his own letters, especially 2 Timothy itself.

Basically, he was referring to OT scriptures. We see this in verse 15 where Paul refers to the sacred writings that Timothy had known since childhood. The sacred writings that were around when Timothy was a child were Old Testament writings.

Since those scriptures didn’t contain the gospel, they could not have been sufficient for perfecting us. But, as Paul said, they were still profitable.

So 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about sola scriptura. It was about not throwing away the Old Testament writings that we could still learn from.

 

[Lazerlike42]

javelin:

You can use this quote, but most fundamentalists will respond that you left out the following verse, which is crucial:

True that Paul didn’t say “only Scrpiture is profitable”, but if Scripture is capable of making the man of God perfect, then nothing more is needed – only Scripture. What’s better than perfect?

By the way, I don’t believe in sola scriptura personally. I just want you to be aware of the counter-arguments so you are prepared when brining this up.

Peace,
javelin

Watch this:

All wine, made by the French, is profitable to drink, to enjoy, to cook, and to serve at parties, That the kitchen of a chef may be perfect, furnished to every good meal.

Does this mean that wine is all that is necessary to have in a cook’s kitchen? Of course not. It means perfection in the sense that it finishes the Job, not that it starts the job.

Scripture is the same. With it Sacred Tradition, the Church can get so far long the path to perfection, but only with Scripture can it make it all the way. Similarly, with Scripture, the Church can get so far along the path, but can only go all the way with Sacred Tradition.

 

[Lazerlike42]

javelin:

You can use this quote, but most fundamentalists will respond that you left out the following verse, which is crucial:

True that Paul didn’t say “only Scrpiture is profitable”, but if Scripture is capable of making the man of God perfect, then nothing more is needed – only Scripture. What’s better than perfect?

By the way, I don’t believe in sola scriptura personally. I just want you to be aware of the counter-arguments so you are prepared when brining this up.

Peace,
javelin

Wow, it accidently posted twice, so I am going to leave you with this amazing comic I wrote:

hey, what’s up?
/

 I am Jesus, Son of the living God
~~~ \

:bigyikes:

:bowdown:

 

[Leon_Miguel]

SemperJase:

Basically, he was referring to OT scriptures. We see this in verse 15 where Paul refers to the sacred writings that Timothy had known since childhood. The sacred writings that were around when Timothy was a child were Old Testament writings.

That is a very neat answer