Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

From where do you get the notion that the mystical body of Christ is made up of denominational churches (Catholic, EO, RO, Coptic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.)? When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many,” contextually, he wasn’t referring at all to “churches” but individual believers. It’s PEOPLE who are, by the Holy Spirit, baptized into the “body of Christ,” which is the church Christ is presently building (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18).

OK. I was just trying to be all-inclusive. So, what you are saying is: every individual Christian believer, regardless of church affiliation and doctrinal disparity of these true believers - comprise the one Mystical Body of Christ, to which He is the head and savior?

 

[joe370]

Something tells me that you don’t feel the same about the CC?
I don’t “feel” that about any “church.” There are some Catholics who are in the body of Christ, many are not. There are some Lutherans in the body of Christ, many are not. Same for EOs, ROs, Coptics, Baptists, etc. There could be whole churches not in the body of Christ. The true “body of Christ” is comprised of true believers only, regardless of Church affiliation.

MD, give me an example of a true believer? Am I a true believer?

 

[joe370]

MD, my niece’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach that John 6 is to be interpreted symbolically; Aj’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach just the opposite; are both these church leaders being guided into all truth regarding John 6?

 

[Monte1945]

If we are to determine if there is a single communion which is specifically the one Christ established on Pentecost, I would say it does not exist in the form that it did the first millenium.
Jon

The establised Church is " The Cause" (God) for The Effect" (church).

The living God comes and “lives withus” us in the form of Grace through the Sacraments
of the Church.

As we are to “Do” something with this endwelling of the Holy Spirit. We are
to love the world in our lifetimes and through our current means.

So of course there has been and will be changes in how we express God’s
love through us. The church is to provide the “means for us to grow in the spirit”
So she provides us with the Sacraments that is her purpose our santification
in the effect we receive through her.

Our vocations are individual and our responsabilitiy to respond too.

God can be in many different modern current systems within our own lives
and cultures…

He can be in all of us. He can be marching within some freedom fighter
walking for the rights of farm workers in califonia with Chevez who stood
up and against the mistreatment of the fruit pickers…

God can be in the political system in some of the people where laws can be changed
to protect the rights of certain people who are not being treated right… etc…

Of course God has different vocations for various people who hear his call and they must react differently than previous christians who had different vocations in their times. And their work for God might be in a different way. But the cause and support of their vocation is to come from the Sacraments which have been set up by the Church.

I see the bible as means to fortify one’s faith to the extent that one go out and engage
in their “call” to show the gospel through their works in a world of hate, greed and self love.

I have had a different calls in my life and I have tried to engage myself into them.
I go to the Mass to gain the Grace of God to keep my faith and to do that which I
feel he is asking from me. I do not read my bible or go to church to question the
validity of the doctrines of the church. I leave that up to the theologians who are
better educated than me. As from my own bible reading I find many of the scriptures
very confusing and too difficult for me to figure out what is or isn’t a right doctrine.

I am not surprised that there are different reactions to the Graces of the same God
who has always been. I think that there “was” a progression of the faith from the
old testement to the new testement, and that was in less time than we have had
from Jesus to now… 1800 years from the old testement to the New testement.
and 2000 years of the chruch to now. So to hear the church advocate new
works for us is not surprising too me… The church does not change the doctrines
she protects them she has calls for different “works” for her people. I do not
find that difficult to believe and accept… We have so much to do. It seems that
the forces of evil are affecting more and more people… It seems that material and
pleasures is the main god of the lost world and the harvests are full and the labors
are not only few but are fussing among each other…

It seems everyone might really benefit if they were to read carefully the first book
of Corinthians from chapter one to the 15th… these chapters deal with the church having
divisions in their doctrines… and the purpose of the book and chapters was to deal
with this exact subject of schisms among themselves. For example Paul wrote
in chapter 1: 10

“I appeal to you brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you agree and
that there be no more divisions among you but that you be knit together in the same mind and the same opinions”

It is as you say… but with a little difference… The church is the same as it has always
been but she has different calls and vocations for us… The same cause different effects.

 

[Monte1945]

But the issue of this thread is not hermeneutical principles or practices. The issue is what should serve as the norma normans/rule/canon in the evaluation of doctrines. You have yet to suggest an alternative to Scripture - what you insist is MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE knowable to all and alterable by none, MORE outside and above all parties, MORE ecumenically embraced as reliable.

I think the basic difficulty I have with your reasoning is that I do not know exactly
what it is that you are thinking when you use certain words.

For example, I say the “Grace of God”. I do not know what that means
to you. We might think of it in the sameway or we might not.

So with that in mind. I am going to attempt to put this is some kind
of plainer talk than what I am reading from you.

You basically are saying that the Bible is more reliable for Truth than
what a Pope might say from his infallible position as the CC understands
he has the right to be.

Yes, he has that right but it has only been used for two subjects.
Both of them has been in regards to Mary The mother of Jesus.

Her immacuate conception which your church agrees with per
sermon of Martin Luther…

And her assumption bodily into heaven… This one I do not know
if you or your church agrees with.

These are the only times any Pope has used his infallible statis
on.

Either of these have anything to do with one’s Salvation…
The marian doctrines are not connected with what one
has to believe or accept in regards to one’s soul being
saved.

Now as for some of the other doctrines you indicated you
do not believe in… I think in one of your posts you said
you did not accept the “communion of Saints doctrine”.

Lets look at that… The Church saids that from the book
of Revelation there are two lines which indicate that one
can have their prayers heard by late christians and they
can present our prayers to the Jesus to offer as our mediator
to God. (Rev 5 and Rev 8)

Now this is again a doctrine which the scriptures indicate that
this can be done and the church accepts it as a doctrine.

Now this is where you might need to focus on…
This is NOT saying that a Catholic HAS to do this.
It is a choice one has in order to decide on for him/herself.

If I want to pray directly to God I can do that… If I want
to pray to a certain saint I can do that.

There is two sides to our faith… Our Salvation and of course
the church does not go outside of the bible for the way to
be saved… Not that it looks in it ‘only’ for that, as she has taught
the way to salvation through her traditions of Sermons and
personal encounters to her people one on one and mainly
through our Catechism lessons. And we are not lead to
faith through threats of hell fire and brimstoen sermons etc.

Then there is our responsability of “santification” to grow
into Him. With having the ability to be good and to do good works.
(contrary to PC who believe in the total depravity of man’s nature)
(again I say I do not know what you believe in some of these doctrines)

The church has set up a system of Sacraments for us to remain
in the Vine and to grow in Grace in order to become like Jesus.
Most of our doctrines which the church has developed are more
aimed at our becoming holy through the sacraments.

I can not associate your idea of the power of the Popes with
the idea of it being bad or evil for the world…

My view of the Pope, is such that he is the protector of the
doctrines of the church… and not so as the creator of the doctrines.
I read that his power is more in the negative than in the positive.
Meaning he has the power to say NO to some who might want to change
the established doctrine than he has the power to say I will change it…
At my own will… As I said, this power given to the Pope/s has only
been used twice… and in these it had nothing to do with one’s
salvation…

I just don’t see this being a problem for any christian church…

The Salvation of God is through Faith which is a gift of God to those
who believe in His only begotten son Jesus and are baptised.

The chruch has always taught that… and has never added or taken
from it… where is the problem of that with the Pope/s?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

MD, my niece’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach that John 6 is to be interpreted symbolically; Aj’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach just the opposite; are both these church leaders being guided into all truth regarding John 6?

I realize it’s basic to your position that if God infallibly leads (and we all agree He does), ERGO we all MUST - by necessity - all infallibly follow. But I’ve asked repeatedly, where do you get that idea? You need to substantiate your premise. You agree that God infallibly lead Adam and Eve - and yet neither of them infallibly followed, so where is your fundamental premise that if God leads infallibly, we follow infallibly? You agree that God infallibly and perpetually lead all those Hebrew kings we learned about in Sunday School and that not only of them infallibly or perpetually followed that lead, so where is your fundamental premise that if God leads, we thereby infallibly follow?

Futhermore, that it’s not ALL that infallibly follow when God infallibly leads - but actually, you seem to hold, it’s only ONE that does. The Catholic Church. For you argue that only ONE is exempt from norming, only ONE is infallible, only ONE is unaccountable, only ONE infallibly follows - The Catholic Church. Where is the substantiation for that remarkable premise?

The Catholic Church (like the LDS and all cults) rejects Sola Scriptura in regard to its teachings NOT because it has an alternative praxis of norming such (better or worse) - it doesn’t. And it rejects Sola Scripture NOT because it has an alternative norma normans (better or worse) - it doesn’t. It rejects any and all rule/canon in norming because it rejects norming - in the singular case of just one: itself, exclusively. It just circumvents the whole question of whether its teachings are correct and replaces the whole issue with the demand that whatever it teaches simply be accepted, “with docility.”

.

.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
MD, my niece’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach that John 6 is to be interpreted symbolically; Aj’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach just the opposite; are both these church leaders being guided into all truth regarding John 6?

I realize it’s basic to your position that if God infallibly leads (and we all agree He does), ERGO we all MUST - by necessity - all infallibly follow.

I can show you the post where I said: people can follow God, but not infallibly. The church born on Pentecost, (comprised of just the Apostles, who were all fallible men, and yet still managed to write infallibly via the guidance of the HS, Who continues to guide Jesus’ church and safeguard truth) - is forever guided by the spirit of truth, into all truth. All truth means infallible truth!!! The holy spirit did not/does guide Jesus’ church into fallible truth. I hope we are finally on the same page. Not one person (including the Pope) - is infallible (incapable of error in his life). His office, the chair of Peter, regardless of who held it, or who holds it, is simply protected by the HS from teaching fallibly, when it comes to faith or morals ONLY. If you don’t believe it, that’s cool. I respect your choice, and hopefully we can move on to the OP. The Infallible holy spirit guides Jesus’ church (comprised of all sinful, fallible leaders) - into all truth as opposed to partial truth or half truth.

But I’ve asked repeatedly, where do you get that idea?

As you can see, I have answered your question, even though you refuse to answer my questions regarding the defense of SS.

You need to substantiate your premise.

I did.

You agree that God infallibly lead Adam and Eve

Yup.

• and yet neither of them infallibly followed

That is because people (adam and eve) - were not infallible. They had free will and they used it.

so where is your fundamental premise that if God leads infallibly, we follow infallibly?

Again, people cannot follow infallibly. I know I can’t. Jesus’ church leadership (not a denomination) - born on Pentecost, was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and only one fledging church (not a denomination) - built on the apostles and prophets of the 1st century - was told 1) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven, and 2) …when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

And I believe that the holy spirit took from what is Jesus’ and made it known to Jesus’ church leaders, and the holy spirit continues to protect this deposit of faith until the end of time. Nothing will ever change my mind. If you choose not to believe this, well, that’s your prerogative.

You agree that God infallibly and perpetually lead all those Hebrew kings we learned about in Sunday School

Yup; God is infallible.

Continued…

 

[JonNC]

I

Again, people cannot follow infallibly. I know I can’t. Jesus’ church leadership (not a denomination) - born on Pentecost, was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and only **one fledging church **(not a denomination) - built on the apostles and prophets of the 1st century - was told 1) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven, and 2) …when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

And I believe that the holy spirit took from what is Jesus’ and made it known to Jesus’ church leaders, and the holy spirit continues to protect this deposit of faith until the end of time. Nothing will ever change my mind. If you choose not to believe this, well, that’s your prerogative.

Hi Joe,
By one fledgling Church, do you mean only, excluding all others in the west and east, The Catholic Church - those in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

Jon

 

[joe370]

and that not only of them infallibly or perpetually followed that lead so where is your fundamental premise that if God leads, we thereby infallibly follow?

Without the perpetual guidance of the INFALLIBLE HS, doctrinal unity would be impossible, for all men are fallible and prone to err. That is because those Hebrew Kings were not infallible and they had free will to reject the infallible will of God, just as Christians can reject the guarded teachings of the church, built by God, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, not half truths or fallible truths, all truth. No one can infallibly follow; we can only fallibly follow or not fallibly follow. God endowed His church with the Infallible holy spirit to protect the teachings of Jesus, from fallible people, both from within the church and without, and the HS will be with Jesus’ church “forever.” Jesus said to just one assembly of believers, one church (as opposed to a denomination):
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.”

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.*

And I believe Jesus. The helper, spirit of truth, who proceeds and testifies about Jesus, sent by the Father, was sent to Jesus’ one church circa AD 33 to teach Jesus’ bride all things and bring to remembrance all that Jesus taught and said, and the helper, spirit of truth, Who guides Jesus’ church (not denomination) - into all truth, will be with Jesus’ established church forever. When Christians belonging to the CC accept with docility the teachings of the sinful, fallible leadership of the CC, we are, in effect, accepting with docility the notion that the infallible holy spirit is indeed, as per sacred scripture, forever guiding Jesus’ church (not denomination) - into all truth; we are believing what our bible tells us to believe. I know, the bible makes no mention that the HS is forever guiding the CC, nor does the bible make mention that the HS is forever guiding any of the PC’s either. I have my reasons for believing that the church of Matthew 16 is the CC and if you want to start another thread, then we can broach that subject, but this thread is about the defense of SS, and when you refuse to answer my questions regarding SS, I cannot learn about SS, as you understand it.

Futhermore, that it’s not ALL that infallibly follow when God infallibly leads - but actually, you seem to hold, it’s only ONE that does. The Catholic Church. For you argue that only ONE is exempt from norming,

Yes, I trust that the CC leadership (regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat) - is forever guided by the Holy Spirit. Regarding other churches and their teachers/leaders (not denominations) - that’s not for me to say. The CCC says that the holy spirit works in these churches as well, but this is way off topic. Start another thread and I will make hay until the cows come home. LOL… I The bible (your norm), by your own admission, cannot arbitrate, decide, evaluate or determine anything, so the bible fails as a norm. The bible needs fallible interpreters to arbitrate, decide, evaluate and determine what is truth and what isn’t, and this task can only be accomplished through the perpetual guidance of the Infallible Holy Spirit.

continued…

 

[joe370]

only ONE is infallible, only ONE is unaccountable, only ONE infallibly follows - The Catholic

Church. Where is the substantiation for that remarkable premise?

Number one, the CC leadership is NOT infallible; number 2, I believe that the CC is the church of Matthew 16, and I always will. Just as you will always believe that the Lutheran Confessions is the accurate (as opposed to fallible) - exposition of your norm, the bible. The CC is accountable and it’s members are not infallible. The preservation of doctrinal truth is due to the active, albeit invisible guidance of the INFALLIBLE Holy Spirit. Let’s close the book on this chapter, and stick with the original question of the thread. Start another thread and we can then mix it up. LOL…

The Catholic Church (like the LDS and all cults) rejects Sola Scriptura in regard to its teachings

Yes, the CC rejects that scripture alone is the Christians final interpreter, arbitrator, evaluator. Again, fallible people comprising Jesus’ church (not denomination) - forever guided by the Infallible HS, are absolutely necessary.

NOT because it has an alternative praxis of norming such (better or worse) - it doesn’t.

The praxis of norming, (where is that found in the bible?) - for the CC, is sacred scripture and sacred tradition, via the authority of their magisters. The bible as the Christians praxis of norming can only work with authoritative teachers. You defer to Lutheran magisters, through the lens of the Lutheran confessions to interpret, arbitrate, determine and evaluate your norm. I defer to the CC magisters or teachers, through the lens of the CCCC, to interpret, determine and evaluate the teachings of the bible, codified by the CC. No CC, no codified bible. That is a fact.

And it rejects Sola Scripture

Because the bible alone cannot evaluate anything; The bible needs interpreters, and every PC provides said interpreters in their respective churches (not denomination) - If the bible alone as the Christians final rule or yardstick, could, on its own, arbitrate, evaluate and settle doctrinal disputes, no doubt you would have illustrated it, by answering our question about the Eucharist, and how scripture alone(minus teachers) - can determine whether or not Jesus was speaking in metaphor, in John 6.

It rejects any and all rule/canon in norming because it rejects norming - in the singular case of just one: itself, exclusively. It just circumvents the whole question of whether its teachings are correct and replaces the whole issue with the demand that whatever it teaches simply be accepted, “with docility.”

Aj, if the CC MUST defer to the bible alone as their final authority, for edification and doctrinal truth, then who or what determines whether or not their interpretation regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect???

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,

By one fledgling Church, do you mean only, excluding all others in the west and east, The Catholic Church - those in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

Hey Jon, how’s it going?

Heck NO!!! I only meant that Jesus’ church (assembly of believers) - was in fact one until the great schism, then it became 2, and in the 16th century, well, you know the rest. That is all I meant.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon, how’s it going?

Heck NO!!! I only meant that Jesus’ church (assembly of believers) - was in fact one until the great schism, then it became 2, and in the 16th century, well, you know the rest. That is all I meant.

Yes, I know the rest. Sad, isn’t it, that His Church is wounded in this way?

It is all going well. Thanks for asking.

His Peace,
Jon

BTW, I got a strange PM yesterday.

 

[SyCarl]

In accordance with the subject of this thread I will give my reasons for accepting Scripture alone.

Scripture alone does not mean everything we can know is found in the Bible. It means the Bible is the only infallible record of divine revelation and that everything we need to know for salvation is clearly set out either explicitly or implicitly. The Calvinist Confession of Westminster says.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men… All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

This does not deny a place for tradition but it is subordinate to Scripture and it is not necessary for salvation. Scripture itself would seem to indicate that there are things not recorded in it.

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
(John 20:30-31 NASB)

John tells us that not all that Jesus did is in his book. I used the words “would seem to indicate there are things not recorded in Scripture” because John is referring only to what is in his book. It is unknown how much of what he didn’t record is in the other Gospels. Even so, John does not leave it at saying that Jesus did other things. He adds the purpose of his book is that we may believe and believing have life in Christ’s name. It seems he is asserting that his book contains what we need. If he can say this for his own book, how much more is it true when we add the rest of the Bible?

Then we have 2 Timothy.

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB)

Paul tells Timothy that the sacred writings are able to give the wisdom that leads to salvation and confirms that all Scripture is inspired by God. It is said Paul would be speaking of the Old Testament. Even so, he says that they are able to lead us to salvation. How much more when we have the entire Bible? However, Paul’s writing was inspired by God. There is no reason to believe that the Apostles would not know their writings would be considered as Scripture. In fact 2 Peter clearly tells us that Paul’s letters are Scripture.

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB)

This is not a new view of 2 Timothy. John Chrysostom in the early church, wrote with respect to what Scripture includes and its sufficiency.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child you have known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.”

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Chrysostom tells us that from Scripture we can know what we should learn and what we should not learn. He says that we have the Scriptures instead of Paul. If we would learn anything we can do it from them. He extends what Paul is saying to Timothy to his audience as well. He does not limit “man of God” to just priests and bishops. He says it applies even more to us than it did to Timothy.

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, Scripture refers to what is written as containing God’s revelation. There are too many passages to list them all but here are a few examples.

"Then the LORD your God will prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your cattle and in the produce of your ground, for the LORD will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.
(Deuteronomy 30:9-10 NASB)

"Keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’
(1 Kings 2:3-4 NASB)

And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”
(Luke 10:25-28 NASB)

Note that when asked how to have eternal life, Jesus refers to what is written and asks for the lawyer’s interpretation of that writing.

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
(Luke 24:44-47 NASB)

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Romans 1:1-7 NASB)

Note that it is Scripture that told beforehand told of the gospel and Jesus. No mention is made of any Jewish oral tradition.

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
(Romans 15:4 NASB)

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Jesus and the Apostles do not cite any oral tradition as the basis for what they are saying. It is always “as it is written” or “as the Scriptures said” or something similar. The whole tone of the New Testament is that it fulfills what was written in the Old.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus does refer to what the people of old had been told.

"You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. "Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent. "You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. "It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’ "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. "But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil. "You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:21-48 NASB)

However, in each case, what He says they heard was actually written in the Law and He quotes from it.

On only one occasion does Jesus actually refer to tradition and that is to condemn it.

Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? "For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”
(Matthew 15:1-9 NASB)

The same incident is recorded in Mark. In the epistles Paul refers to tradition several times. Paul basically treats tradition as synonymous with teaching. There is only one place where he speaks of oral tradition.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 NASB)

This must be read in its proper context. We have only two short letters that Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. It is clear from reading them that they do not include all the teaching contained in the rest of Scripture or even in Paul’s letters to others. There is nothing to show that what Paul taught orally to the Thessalonians he or another did not write elsewhere. There is nothing that requires that this oral teaching be something other than what has been recorded elsewhere.

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

The quote given from John Chrysostom would indicate that the oral teachings have been committed to writing. He tells us that if we would know anything we have the Scriptures instead of Paul. Irenaeus also seems to tell us this.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

The Gospel was first taught orally but has now been handed down to us in Scriptures. Notice also that he has no problem referring to Scripture in the middle of the second century although we are told that the contents of Scripture were not defined until late in the fourth century.

Paul’s references to tradition are mixed. He refers to it positively in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians but also negatively in Colossians.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
(Colossians 2:8 NASB)

We have both Jesus and Paul warning about traditions of men. We are told that Scripture is inspired. We are not told what oral traditions, if any, might be inspired. The Catholic Church claims to have Apostolic Tradition. To accept this Tradition as inspired and infallible we must first accept the Catholic Church’s claims about itself. To do so we must agree with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scriptures that deal with the Church. This requires our private interpretation of the passages involved, if only to determine that we agree with the Church.

We are told to examine everything carefully. We are not to accept uncritically everything we are told or taught.

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.
(1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 NASB)

Examining everything involves applying our judgement to what is taught. How can we examine oral tradition without some standard independent of the source providing that tradition? That standard is Scripture.

It is often said that Sola Scriptura was a new teaching that had not been heard of prior to the Reformation. Reviewing the Church Fathers indicates that this is not true. Augustine writes:

Chapter 9.CHow We Should Proceed in Studying Scripture.
14. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,Cto wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

Augustine quite clearly states that all matters concerning faith and manner of life are plainly laid down in Scripture. This is in essence Sola Scriptura. Remember again that Sola Scripture does not say that all truth is in Scripture, but that everything necessary is clearly set out in it. While Augustine may refer to tradition elsewhere, he has said here that what is required is clearly in Scripture.

John Chrysostom also deals with the sufficiency of Scripture.

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

Just as Augustine did, Chrysostom sets out that all the necessary things are plainly set out in Scripture. They are clear and open. Whatever he may say elsewhere about tradition, he clearly states that what is necessary is found in Scripture. That is Sola Scriptura. Note that the sufficiency of Scripture is made even clearer in that he states that the necessity of a homily is not to explain Scripture. It is necessary because his audience does not read the Scriptures on their own.

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Given the statements in two the passages I quoted at the beginning of this, the whole emphasis on the overwhelming use of what is written versus oral tradition in the Bible, the mixed treatment given to tradition, the lack of Scriptural proof of any infallible unwritten tradition, I believe that Sola Scriptura is implicitly taught in the Scriptures. While some traditions may be true, they are not necessary for salvation. We do not need to know everything, even if we want to our feel we should know. There is no way to know which are true without accepting the Church’s own interpretation of Scripture.

It has been said that Sola Scriptura has resulted in the division of Christianity into thousands of denominations. If division is a valid basis for attacking Sola Scriptura, then you would expect that there would be no division among those who hold to both Scripture and Tradition as having equal authority. However, this is not the case. There are the Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Eastern Oriental churches and the Orthodox. The Catholic Church recognizes each of these as having valid Apostolic Succession and each claim to follow Tradition as well as Scripture, yet they are still separate. Therefore there is disunity without Sola Scriptura.

 

[joe370]

Carl, how do you know that the Bible is the infallible record of divine revelation, written by fallible people and codified by fallible people?

 

[joe370]

The quote given from John Chrysostom would indicate that the oral teachings have been committed to writing. He tells us that if we would know anything we have the Scriptures instead of Paul. Irenaeus also seems to tell us this.

Quote:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Carl, I agree that Scripture is the ground and pillar of the Christian faith for it is the very word of God, however, the infallible word of God tells me that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Catholics have used the Scriptures for their faith for as long as they have existed. However the Bible has not always existed in its current form. In fact, it was not put together as a bound and compiled work until well into the 4th century, by the CC! Some people, particularly non-Catholics, feel that the Bible is the only thing that should guide their Christian faith, via whose teaching and interpretation, I am not entirely sure, for they leave that part out, even though the Christian faith existed before the Scriptures and was originally transmitted orally and through the tradition of the CC. What did these early Christians do without the bound codified bible as their final authority regarding faith or morals? They did as the Christians did in the book of Hebrews; they obeyed their leaders and submitted to their authority:

*Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
*

Sacred tradition was actually the touchstone by which the CC eventually selected the books that would be included in the bible, and excluded in the bible. Catholics believe that the Bible was written by God and by fallible human authors. The reason we can trust these fallible authors and their fallible successors who eventually codified the canon, is simple: the infallible HS is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth Here’s a quote from the NAB footnotes on 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

• “In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language. See also 2 Peter 1:20-21.” *

Sola scriptura is a composite of holy Scripture, that all doctrines of Christianity should be compared against. The problem is the fact that every PC compares their doctrines of Christianity against scripture alone, and then claim that their unique doctrinal interpretation of the bible is the correct one vs the incorrect doctrinal interpretations of other PC’s. They can’t all be right, can they? In the end who or what determines whether or not these church leaders are right or wrong about their doctrinal beliefs? In the end there has to be some sort of oversight, administration and arbitration in place to evaluate and resolve doctrinal matters, for the bible alone can do none of this. Also, Sola Scriptura or scripture alone is nowhere to be found in the Bible! If this were to be true, according to Sola Scriptura, then this statement would have to appear somewhere in the Bible in one form or another implicit or explicit. In fact it is un-Biblical! If I am not allowed to claim that the church of Matthew 16 is the CC for the simple fact that the word catholic is not found in the bible, then the same logic must apply to sola scriptura.

You referenced 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says:

• “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

Let’s break it down.

1. All scripture is inspired by God…

We know that God’s truth stands the test of time and all subsequent Scripture must be inspired by God as well. But, the important thing to keep in mind is that this verse does not say that Scripture alone is the only thing inspired by God.

1. All scripture…is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction…(and the list goes on).

I emphasized the word “useful” for a reason. Notice how it says “useful” and not something like “the only thing” or “the only means”. In other words, scripture is helpful, it is a resource, an aid. This verse, nor the word “useful”, implies that it is the only rule of faith. It says that it is something useful for one’s faith.

1. …so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Meaning that Scripture is a good tool for learning to live out the Gospel.

By carefully studying this passage, it is clear to see that it does not say that the Bible alone is sufficient or our sole rule of faith. If one is able to produce other Biblical evidence that the Bible implicitly or explicitly says that it is the sole rule of faith please let me know.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Carl, what does the Bible say, is the rule of faith or the foundation of truth? Is it the bible or the praxis of norming, according to Josiah?

Not according to the Bible. Not one singular thing is our guiding principle or rule of faith; it is a combination of what we have done in the past and what was handed on to us (called Tradition) and the Bible. In order to find out what the foundation of truth is, we only need to go back a few pages to 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.”

1 Timothy 3:15 clearly explains that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. “The pillar and foundation of truth” refers only to “the church” in that sentence, and I am aware that it doesn’t refer to the CC or any of the PC’s! Some will contest that it depends on one’s definition of “church.” That is a valid argument, but it works under any of the accepted definitions of church.

One argument against, is that the church is not a building, it is just the believers, as Josiah insists. Well, I agree with him, but only in a particular sense. No, the church is not just a building and the Catholic Church clearly recognizes that. In fact there is no one single Catholic church building, it is an amalgam of churches worldwide, that recognize appointed authorities just like in the time of the apostles!

Jesus appointed specific people, 12 to be exact, to carry out his mission. Even though Jesus has many, many followers, he called out 12 specific individuals to guide his flock. Even in Jesus’ time there was a structured church. In fact the church could not exist if Jesus had not been around to start it himself and he did, but he left it in the hands of Peter, Paul and His other apostles(Mt 16:13-19), who in turn passed the baton to successors, such as Timothy, Barnabas and Titus, who were charged to do the same.

So, we see that there was a church, with a specific structure of leaders, as per the NT, that were called by God to lead His church. This is the Catholic definition of church. Now, if the church is founded upon the leaders…

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

…then it is safe to say that the church can also mean “the leaders” or “the one’s with teaching authority.”

Another way of looking at it is that the pillar and foundation of truth is the teaching office of the church, since they are the ones with the teaching authority (Mt 16:19, 18:18) commissioned by Jesus Christ himself. Jesus passed on to us the church, not the Bible. The Bible is not the sole rule of faith according to the Bible; it is the people called and commissioned by God and the holy Scriptures along with Tradition. Neither is separate or greater from the other since both were given to us from God.

Regarding SS as our final authority, we can’t simply quote the bible when trying to prove the this or the authenticity of the Bible; This circular logic will not work. If I say that I am the President of the US, does that mean I am because I said so? No! I would need another recognized authority or governing body to declare that I am such before it can be recognized by others, just as Jesus is the recognized authority…

*“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
*

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

…who declared that His church is to teach and be His witnesses to the ends of the earth. Something outside the Bible has to verify the trustworthiness, sacredness and doctrinal truth of the Scriptures. What was that sanctioned body? Was it the Baptist church or the Pentecostal church or the Methodist church or the Lutheran church or any PC for that matter, that was founded/started by Jesus Christ, whose leaders can trace their office back to one of the 12 Apostles or is it the CC (and the EOC’s) - whose leaders can trace their office back to one of the 12 Apostles? The only reason why any Christian today has reverence for the Bible is because the Catholic Church has said that the books contained therein are sacred Scripture. The fact that we as Christians, revere Scripture and follow what is contained within, is a Tradition of the Catholic Church. Some people follow Catholic teachings and don’t even know it!

Sacred scripture is the authoritative word of God and is absolutely indispensable for “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” St. Jerome - But, by itself it cannot evaluate or arbitrate anything, unless of course the Bible is self-interpretive, which begs the question: why the need for pastors and ministers?

Carl what are your thoughts?