Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

OK. I would like to point out that I am the OP of this thread and I disagree with you about what the thread was about. It was about defending Sola Scriptura from seeming inherent contradiction.

You just keep copying and pasting earlier posts (you just did it again too…), and as soon as you are asked to defend your position on anything, you just dismiss it as off topic and repeat yourself again. I feel like you are not really reading the posts of myself and others fully but just spending the time typing your next post instead.

I’m sorry but as I said I will look elsewhere for the answer.

Best,

-nt

Perhaps you cangive and example what you view as inherent contradictions.
Thanks,
Jon

 

[ntisawesome]

It’s all in the OP.

 

[JonNC]

It’s all in the OP.

This?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

The Bible claims to have that which is necessary for salvation, teaching, etc. All SS says is that, without denying that truth can be found in other places, the early councils, ECF’s, creeds, etc., we know for certain the scripture contains His truth, and we should measure other teachings and teachers by that truth.
Now, this may be different than what the Catholic Church teaches - Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, Magisterium/Pope, but it is not contradictory. It would only be contradictory if I were to type here that God cannot reveal himself in other ways, which would be ridiculous.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Without interrupting… let me try my hand at this…

The Bible claims to have that which is necessary for salvation, teaching, etc. All SS says is that, without denying that truth can be found in other places, the early councils, ECF’s, creeds, etc., we know for certain the scripture contains His truth, and we should measure other teachings and teachers by that truth. There are several problems with that logic…here is the short version…

1.) Christ never wrote any Scripture, all we have is what others wrote about Him. But, not everyone who wrote about Christ was inspired - some authors were the ‘intellectual fathers’ of today’s computer hackers - they just intended to deceive and spread pain to others.

2.) Since there were multiple books out there: some inspirational, some mischeivious and some inspired, SOMEONE had to decide what was what because these collected works could not sort themselves out by themselves. And, these books could no more explain themselves back then than they can do today!

3.) The Catholic Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, used as its guide Apostolic Tradition (not the traditions of man…) to make the necessary decisions about which books would be included - from Genesis to Revelations, and the order that they were to appear. This was done before the year 400. This means that a source - other then the Bible - developed the Canon - set the mark - for what we have as the Bible today. The Bible did not develop itself, nor was it delivered by the Holy Spirit on that First Pentecost Sunday - the Birthday of the Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church).

Items 1, 2, and 3 are just historical facts.

Now for the example you ask for… here are two!

If Scripture is not the sole authority, but combined with Apostolic Tradition as is maintained by the Catholic Church, let’s see how this works out in practice.

In John 6, Christ clearly tells His listeners on eight separate occasions, that He is the Bread of Life and if one does not eat this Bread, they will die. There was some initial confusion amongst the listeners - is this an analogy - but, Christ repeats and repeats (and, no where else does He do this!) until it dawns on the listeners that He is serious - and - then they reject Him (‘This is a hard saying, who can listen to it’) and walk away. No one walks away from an analogy.

In the Last Supper Discourses as recounted by Matthew, Mark and Luke, Christ takes bread, blesses it, and gives it to His Apostles and tells them that this is His Body. At no time did He say this represents my Body, or this is a symbol for my Body or anything else - the words are short and quite precise.

Now, St. Paul and the Early Church Fathers all have acknowledged that Holy Communion is the consecration of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This was taught from the very beginning and almost 2,000 years later it is still the core doctrine of the Catholic Church

Conversely, those who adhere to SS claim that this is all a misunderstanding - the clearly written words are but analogy, have not the meaning understood by Catholics and this is because God would never endorse cannibalism. This waltz around the clearly written words of Christ - with SS effectively thrown to the winds - is curious - and really requires an explanation. Feel free to enlighten me.

Not happy with that? Let me offer another… John 20:21 - here we have the Risen Christ delegating the Power of God to men to forgive - or NOT forgive - the sins of other men. The words are clear - but, somehow SS is able to turn them on their head and say they no longer have meaning. Now, Jon, in your enthusiasm for explaining why John 6 and the Synoptics and the ECF got it wrong - awaiting 1500 years for protestantism to get it ‘right’, please include why confession is no longer needed. I really am intersted in your response.

God bless

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,1.) Christ never wrote any Scripture, all we have is what others wrote about Him. But, not everyone who wrote about Christ was inspired - some authors were the ‘intellectual fathers’ of today’s computer hackers - they just intended to deceive and spread pain to others.

2.) Since there were multiple books out there: some inspirational, some mischeivious and some inspired, SOMEONE had to decide what was what because these collected works could not sort themselves out by themselves. And, these books could no more explain themselves back then than they can do today!

3.) The Catholic Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, used as its guide Apostolic Tradition (not the traditions of man…) to make the necessary decisions about which books would be included - from Genesis to Revelations, and the order that they were to appear. This was done before the year 400. This means that a source - other then the Bible - developed the Canon - set the mark - for what we have as the Bible today. The Bible did not develop itself, nor was it delivered by the Holy Spirit on that First Pentecost Sunday - the Birthday of the Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church).

Items 1, 2, and 3 are just historical facts.

Now for the example you ask for… here are two!

If Scripture is not the sole authority, but combined with Apostolic Tradition as is maintained by the Catholic Church, let’s see how this works out in practice.

In John 6, Christ clearly tells His listeners on eight separate occasions, that He is the Bread of Life and if one does not eat this Bread, they will die. There was some initial confusion amongst the listeners - is this an analogy - but, Christ repeats and repeats (and, no where else does He do this!) until it dawns on the listeners that He is serious - and - then they reject Him (‘This is a hard saying, who can listen to it’) and walk away. No one walks away from an analogy.

In the Last Supper Discourses as recounted by Matthew, Mark and Luke, Christ takes bread, blesses it, and gives it to His Apostles and tells them that this is His Body. At no time did He say this represents my Body, or this is a symbol for my Body or anything else - the words are short and quite precise.

Now, St. Paul and the Early Church Fathers all have acknowledged that Holy Communion is the consecration of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This was taught from the very beginning and almost 2,000 years later it is still the core doctrine of the Catholic Church

Conversely, those who adhere to SS claim that this is all a misunderstanding - the clearly written words are but analogy, have not the meaning understood by Catholics and this is because God would never endorse cannibalism. This waltz around the clearly written words of Christ - with SS effectively thrown to the winds - is curious - and really requires an explanation. Feel free to enlighten me.

Not happy with that? Let me offer another… John 20:21 - here we have the Risen Christ delegating the Power of God to men to forgive - or NOT forgive - the sins of other men. The words are clear - but, somehow SS is able to turn them on their head and say they no longer have meaning. Now, Jon, in your enthusiasm for explaining why John 6 and the Synoptics and the ECF got it wrong - awaiting 1500 years for protestantism to get it ‘right’, please include why confession is no longer needed. I really am intersted in your response.

God bless

Whoa, Tom.
When you speak of the real presence (I have no problem with the phrase body, blood soul and divinity), and confession and Holy Absolution, there is absolutely nothing in what you wrote, either about John 6, or the Last Supper accounts, or Pauls reiteration of them, or the ECF’s “take” on them that a Lutheran would disagree with. IOW, Tom, they didn’t get it wrong.
In another thread, I wrote a few minutes ago, in response to whether or not I believe in the real presence, I wrote:

… But in the case of the former [real presence], we both together hold to what Christ said: “This is my body”. Not, “this is like my body”, or “this is symbolic of my body”, or “this includes my body”, or " my body is there when you eat it". No. When the pastor says Chirst’s words, the bread and wine are His body and blood.

And I will match your enthusiasm, word for word, on it.

And BTW, you are never interrupting. I always value your insight.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

That was great! And, there is a chance (OK, rather remote) that old AJ may have even read all of them! Thanks for your posts!,

Let me make a clarification here. She wrote the NT. She recognized the OT because the NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is revealed in the NT.

God bless,

 

[benedictus2]

Of course, the NT is not The Bible…

IMHO, The Catholic Church wrote not a single letter of the NT. The Catholic Church as no hands, no eyes, no means by which to write. Now, you COULD amend the often Catholic claims that “The Catholic Church wrote the Bible” by claiming that CATHOLICS penned the New Testament. That would be much more credible. But then you have to substantiate who penned about half of the books - because the books don’t say who penned them.

Some of the authors are not clear, but they are clearly Catholics because there was only the Catholic Church at that time. All the other Christian Churches came later (around 1550 or later).

And then you have the very difficult (impossible?) task of revealing that every one of them was officially registered in a congregation formally associated with The Catholic Church

Not difficult at all. Extremely easy. Walk in the park easy. There was only one Church during that time. The Catholic Church. Yes, we have been around for 2000 years and will be around forever.

But regardless of the identity of the penmen of the books from Genesis - Revelation, and regardless of what congregations they held formal membership and what denominations those congregations were officially associated with, the issue remains: Are teachers among us ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach? Whether they be Pope Benedict or Billy Graham or Martin Luther or Joel Osment or Joseph Smith or Thomas Aquainas or me or you? Do all the divine, stern warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, are those divine warnings valid or not? If accountability is embraced for all, and if the divine warnings are valid, then norming (the evaluation of positions) is necessary for ALL (including The Catholic Church, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, etc.). And the first question in norming is: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as such.

Do I have to scream it out before you get it? THAT IS CIRCULAR REASONING. Please man, do a little bit of research and study what that fallacy means. This is getting exasperating.

I hope that helps.

Not one bit. You keep gong around and around in circles.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2,

That was great! And, there is a chance (OK, rather remote) that old AJ may have even read all of them! Thanks for your posts!,

God bless,

Thanks petal Have a wonderful trip!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Some of the authors are not clear, but they are clearly Catholics because there was only the Catholic Church at that time. All the other Christian Churches came later (around 1550 or later).

1. I have no idea why it matters to the issue before us if all the penmen of the Bible (Genesis - Revelation) were officially registered in congregations formally associated with The Catholic Church.
2. I agree the catholic church existed when the NEW TESTAMENT was penned, but there’s zero evidence that The Catholic Church - that specific, singular, particular, denomination - existed. And so what if it did? It existed when the State of California determined that we cannot use our cell phones while driving, so that mean that that law should not be the canon for such? WHATEVER point you are TRYING to make with this line of argument is mysterious to me.

Do I have to scream it out before you get it? THAT IS CIRCULAR REASONING.

Yes, when The Catholic Church simply declares: “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right” IS circular reasoning. Yes, obviously, it IS circular reasoning when The Catholic Church insisting that the only norm it will permit as it alone arbitrates if it is correct is 1) The Tradition of itself as itself chooses, defines and interprets plus 2) the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself plus 3) the Magisterium of itself as chosen by itself and the rulings, views, interpretations, arbitrations of itself. It’s just self looking in the mirror to determine if self looks like self - it’s a perfect circle of self-authenticating, a perfect example of Circular reasoning. Kind of like yours, “The Catholic Church always existed so therefore The Catholic Church always existed.”

All parties being subject to one norm/canon/rule OUTSIDE them all is not circular.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

benedictus2:

Josiah:

The Catholic Church doesn’t even claim that it even EXISTED when most of the Bible was written.

Sorry petal, but the Catholic Church does CLAIM SO. Pentecost is the bithday of the Catholic Church. Expand your reading material to include history.

IMHO, YOU need to read some history. The oldest part of the Bible goes back to about 1400 BC. Pentecost was about 31 AD. The (entirely unsubstantiated) claim of The Catholic Church is that it came into existence in 31 AD - according to you. Let me do the math for you (I have a degree in math): That means the Bible began to be written 1,431 years before The Catholic Church itself even (entirely unsubstantiatedly) claims it came into existence. You need to pay a bit more attention to history when repeat these claims.

And this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of this thread. Just because something existed has nothing to do with the soundless of a norma normans. Nothing. I existed when the State of California outlawed smoking in restaurants, does that mean the better norma normans in such is me - rather than the Rule of Law? Obviously not. I have no clue what your point has to do with the subject of this thread.

The issue before us is the embraced rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of theological doctrines. If you have a canon that is MORE historical (older than 1400 BC), is MORE inerrant, is MORE inspired, is MORE the inscripturated words of God, is MORE reliable, is MORE knowable to all and alterable by none, MORE outside all parties involved in the normative process - then propose it.

.

 

[twinc]

Any references to where he justifies that “The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.” ? That would be a pretty important premise in his argument.

I don’t think you’re pushing. I’m believing that last line more and more every day.

The subject or topic is/was ‘defense of Sola Scripture’ and yet no one felt free to defend it so let Scripture defend itself as inerrant,sola and prime thus:-
inerrant = 2Timothy 3:16-17…sola and prime = Jn.20:30-31 - This I know as a Catholic with many Protestant relatives and friends as brothers and sisters in Christ - twinc

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The subject or topic is/was ‘defense of Sola Scripture’ and yet no one felt free to defend it

I recommend you read this thread. Actually, several have. You might want to read posts # 21 and 25 for example.

.

 

[twinc]

I recommend you read this thread. Actually, several have. You might want to read posts # 21 and 25 for example.
./QUOTE

and so! what’s new? the same old misunderstanding that prevents unity and encourages division like for example that the Pope or Magisterium is infallible wheras in fact it is only God/Holy Ghost that is infallible “for it is not flesh and blood that reveals this to you but my Father in Heaven” - twinc

 

[Trilor]

The most thorough, or at least the longest, defense of the idea of Sola Scriptura that I have found is found at this link: bible.ca/sola-scriptura.htm. Now, mind yoiu, out of honesty I should say that I do not agree with the pages. In fact, I would argue that there are many logical and literary critical fallacies invoilved in their argument. But there it is nonetheless.

 

[JonNC]

The most thorough, or at least the longest, defense of the idea of Sola Scriptura that I have found is found at this link: bible.ca/sola-scriptura.htm. Now, mind yoiu, out of honesty I should say that I do not agree with the pages. In fact, I would argue that there are many logical and literary critical fallacies invoilved in their argument. But there it is nonetheless.

A horrible source!!!

B. Sola Scriptura means:

The Bible alone without creeds. (ie Apostles creed, Nicene creed.)
The Bible alone without councils. (ie Ecumenical Councils.)
The Bible alone without church canons. (ie Canons of Dort.)
The Bible alone without statements of faith. (most churches create one.)
The Bible alone without oral tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without church tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without a “church interpreter”. (Catholic, Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses all say only the church can correctly interpret the Bible, not the individual.)
The Bible alone without individual illumination of the Holy Spirit. (Evangelicals, Baptists, Charismatics and Calvinists believe they are personally guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret the Bible.)

Whether one credits or blames Luther with inventing/creating/explaining Sola Scriptura, he would scoff at this as lunacy. This is no more sola scriptura than I am Mr. Spock!!

Jon

 

[Trilor]

So, more solO scriptura than solA scriptura

 

[JonNC]

So, more solO scriptura than solA scriptura

Goodness, yes!! Way, way more!!! If I thought for a moment that was what I had to believe to practice SS, or be Lutheran…

Jon

 

[joe370]

Josiah, you said:

The Catholic Church doesn’t even claim that it even EXISTED when most of the Bible was written.

OK…Which church in the world today, did exist when most of the Bible was written?

The Catholic Church doesn’t have hands or eyes and thus CANNOT write ANYTHING

.

What does that mean?

The Catholic Church didn’t tell the Israelites that the Ten Commandments is Scripture (or any other Scripture).

Which Protestant church did tell the Israelites that the Ten Commandments are Scripture (or any other Scripture)?

The Catholic Church had NOTHING to do with what books are embraced as Scripture (read the history!)

Which Protestant church, in the world today, had everything to do with what books are embraced as Scripture?

…it didn’t even exist when most of this happened.

Which Protestant church, in the world today DID exist when most of this happened?

It didn’t do ANYTHING whatsoever related to this until OVER THREE CENTURIES AFTER the last Scripture was penned, and all it did was acknowledge the books ALREADY accepted.

The myriad Protestant churches didn’t do ANYTHING whatsoever related to this until OVER 15 CENTURIES AFTER the last Scripture was penned, and all it did was acknowledge the books ALREADY accepted and codified by the church built by Jesus. Can you give me the name of the church in the world today, that existed in the 1st century?

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible, as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time period?

 

[benedictus2]

Of course, the NT is not The Bible…

Correct. I should re-phrase that to: The Catholic Church gave the world the Bible. She wrote the NT and canonized the entire Bible.

IMHO, The Catholic Church wrote not a single letter of the NT. The Catholic Church as no hands, no eyes, no means by which to write. Now, you COULD amend the often Catholic claims that “The Catholic Church wrote the Bible” by claiming that CATHOLICS penned the New Testament. That would be much more credible. But then you have to substantiate who penned about half of the books - because the books don’t say who penned them. And then you have the very difficult (impossible?) task of revealing that every one of them was officially registered in a congregation formally associated with The Catholic Church AND that they all held to the official dogmas of the specific, singular, particular The Catholic Church. Otherwise, the claim that they were specificly CATHOLICS would be baseless.

Since there was no other Church around that time (up until the 1500s in fact), then your argument is the one that is baseless. Yes, you may find that disheartening but they were all Catholics back then. Please refer back to the little history I provided a few posts back.

But regardless of the identity of the penmen of the books from Genesis - Revelation, and regardless of what congregations they held formal membership and what denominations those congregations were officially associated with, the issue remains: Are teachers among us ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach? Whether they be Pope Benedict or Billy Graham or Martin Luther or Joel Osment or Joseph Smith or Thomas Aquainas or me or you? Do all the divine, stern warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, are those divine warnings valid or not? If accountability is embraced for all, and if the divine warnings are valid, then norming (the evaluation of positions) is necessary for ALL (including The Catholic Church, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, etc.).

You are working from a wrong premise here. Accountabillity has nothing to do with it. The Catholic Church is only accountable to Christ, her founder. And here’s the thing, it is in fact Christ who ensures that she is always faithful and accountable by promising that the gates of hell will not prevail and that the Holy Spirit will be her guide.

The Catholic Church does not need any other man made rule to make her accountable.

And the first question in norming is: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as such.

As I have reiterated patiently, that is circular reasoning. To say that, what we are trying to interpret (scripture) should be the rule for interpretion is fallacious.

For 1500 years of Christianity there was no need for this. Why? Because the only rule required was tradition. The rule by which the canon was determined was tradition.

The protestants in their poverty had to come up with sola scriptura because they had nothing else to go by. Even the Bible does not support this. Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.

It is embraced by all as reliable (even inerrant!), it has historic (back to 1400 BC) and ecumenical embrace - inlcuding by all parties in the evaluation, it is knowable by all and alterable by none; many even embrace it as the very inscripturated words of God Himself. This, in the view of those that use this praxis, it is a more sound rule/canon than the alternative of self looking to the views of self as the rule for the evaluation of the views of self.

Wrong premise again. The Bible was not held inerrant from 1400 BC.
The Jews did not come up with a definitive canon till the 200s in response to the Christians decision to set a canon.

And there is no such thing as ecumenical embrace in relation to Scripture. If Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Henry VIII did not decide to start their own man made churches (1500 years after Christ started His) we would not even be having this discussion.

 

[benedictus2]

We were talking about Scripture, and honey, most of it is OLD TESTAMENT - predating even when The Catholic Church claims it came into existence.

True. I corrected my phrasing in my previous post.

And everything The Catholic Church accepted as Scripture was because it affirmed with JEWS and early CHRISTIANS embraced as such. All it did was acknowledge such, formally at The Council of Trent in the 16th century.

Nope. As I said in my previous post, the Jewish canon was not finalized till the 200s. They came up with their canon in response to the Christians starting to come up with theirs. And sorry to disabuse you with a notion that you must have been hanging on to for years but THE EARLY CHRISTIANS WERE ALL CATHOLIC. Read again the History of the church which I included in my post a few pages back.

Honey, almost ALL denominations have done this - nothin’ unique about The Catholic Church’s doing it. My denomination embraced Scriptures officially and formally in 1847 in St. Louis, MO. Yours did it at Trent, Italy.

No here it is again. She accepted wrote the NT. That is plain simple fact. Please take the time to read so you will be better informed.
**AD **
51-125

The New Testament books are written.140

Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul. 200

The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. 367

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D… 382

Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order. 393

the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.397

The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …AD787

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.1442

AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.1536

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical. 1546

At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.