Defense of Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

. See, I tend to believe that the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that God’s truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher that must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, exempt self alone from norming, insist that the issue of correctness just be laid aside in the singlar, exclusive, sole case of self alone; and that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted with docility.

Ok, so you have now made with clarity your point that teh Catholic Church is a “false teacher”. That brings up the question, why are you here? What is your purpose in coming to CAF? You seem to be trying to pursuade us to leave Catholic Teaching, in favor of the doctrine of SS. Each time you see a member look like they might be moving that way, you make notice that they have “left the Catholic” view. Is that what you hope to accomplish here?

But I think you have a false premise (the same one used by the LDS as well as all cults), namely, that if God established some entity, ergo it is infallible/unaccountable. I wonder why you get this idea?

Are you saying that you think God establishes fallible things, makes promises to lead into all Truth, then fails?

. God established Adam and Eve - were they thus INFALLIBLE? Did God regard them as UNACCOUNTABLE? God established the Hebrew Kingdom, even personally appointed some of the kings. Remember your Sunday School lessons? Was that Kingdom INFALLIBLE? Did God regard it and the kings of it as UNACCOUNTABLE?

None of these have divine elements. Jesus is Head of the Church. You are implying that He is the Head of something false and corrupt. I think the letters of Revelation are pretty clear that Jesus is able to purify the Church.

 

[Bengoshi]

Jon, as a whole, neither Catholics or Protestants are into relativism, which says that there are multiple truths regarding any one doctrine. Each and every isolated, autonomous church (leadership) - believes and teaches that there is only one truth regarding any one doctrine, that is to say: doctrines revealed by Jesus to His apostles, and interpreted, evaluated by each respective church ministry. In other words: one infallible teaching regarding any one revealed truth, versus all other fallible teachings.

In light of this, are we not forced to conclude that the vast majority of conflicting biblical interpretations are incorrect since only one can be true; is that a fair statement? The big question is: where do we go to find this one truth, regarding any one doctrine? Is truth parceled out amongst the isolated, autonomous churches? Has the one true church, established by God, in the first century, now become the aggregate of all the churches, regardless of denomination, that we see in the world today? If so, then how can we know for certain which church (be it Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist etc. etc.; I could go on and on) - possesses doctrinal truth, and if doctrinal truth is in fact parceled out amongst each respective church, along with some fallible truths, doctrinally speaking, then logically, I would have to attend all of these churches to equip myself with the fullness of truth - right? The problem looming large of course, is the fact that all churches (not just the CC) - claim to possess the fullness of truth, based on their understanding of their bible.

The pillar and foundation of truth is still the church, but the question is: which one? Since the Protestant reformation, individuals have been starting new churches based on their opposition to their church leaders, and in response, have been starting their own churches, basing their beliefs on their individual interpretation of Sacred Scripture (sola scriptura) - just as their former teacher/pastor did, which has led to the hundreds and hundreds of churches that we now see in the world today; Isn’t that an accurate assessment, and of course I am including the CC, if in fact the CC was not the church founded by Jesus? Clearly there are only 2 options:

1. There still exists in the world today, the authoritative church founded by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, that can still teach authoritatively, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the only reason why we can trust Jesus church - the infallible, ineffable Holy spirit. BTW I am not suggesting the CC; everyone must make their own journey to the historical church founded by God, where the fullness of truth can be found, if in fact the fullness of truth can still be found in the one church founded by Jesus Christ.
2. There is NO one authoritative church, possessing the fullness of truth, (doctrinally speaking) - in the world today, which of course is tantamount to saying that all of the isolated, autonomous church leaders, teaching via Sola Scriptura as their final authority, which, is in effect, individual interpretation, (including the CC, if the CC is not the historical church founded by Jesus) - regardless of denomination, could, very well, be teaching fallibly to their flock, which is kind of a scary thought.

Jon, this to me, seems like a powerful argument against Sola Scriptura (Bible alone as the Christians final authority) - whether that Christian is sitting in the pew or standing at the pulpit. They are still, all individuals who have started/founded their own church, basing their teachings on their unique individual interpretation of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone), and again, the CC is also guilty of this if the CC was not founded by God in the 1st century, in Jerusalem. Of course no one will give me the name of the man (or men) - that founded the CC, and when, so that I can rule out Jesus Christ as the founder.

Jon, am I missing something here? Option one seems to be the only viable fix.

Deut. 29:29 -

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”

God did not reveal everything to us. Some where left secret. There are passages which God intentionally did not make absolutely clear and we are free to interpret it as much as we are able. However, as St. Augustine said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” We are free to have our own personal stand on the non-essentials, however, we must be careful not to be too dogmatic about it and quickly pronounce heresy to those who disagree wiht us. Read CONVICTION WITHOUT COMPROMISE by Drs. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard in Christ,

Look at the straw man that you have created by your question. No one is contending that the points made against sola scriptura are needed more than the record that God gave of his son. The phrasing of your question is neither relevant or appropriate. It is like asking whether or not the headlights, steering wheel, and brakes are needed more than the car.

Things that are necessary and important parts of something are not to be attacked by asking if those parts are somehow greater than the whole. Scripture says important things about the church, and scripture says important things about oral tradition. To ignore the role of these things and their rightful place in relationship to scripture is to ignore the directives of scripture. It makes me wonder just how much of scripture you think can be ignored.

God bless.

Ok, Pax this is getting a little tireing and if the point wasn’t so important I thnk that I probably would have moved on by now. Here’s my post that started this exchange:

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
In a previous post I wrote

Pax, You say: “Scripture, tradition, and the church are all necessary for the fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” I have pointed out several scriptures that point to Jesus as our only means of salvation, so I agree with you on scripture. If as you say tradition and the church are also necessary for the “fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” Where can I find this. If there is a “fullness of truth and the manifestation of all that we need for salvation.” exclusive of scripture and is found only in the CC or in the CC’s tradition and is more than that found in scripture ie. Jn. 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Where is it? What is it? Don’t you think that that should have been one of the first things you should have posted.

Here’s 1Jn.5:9,10 again

1Jn.5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

What is “the record that God gave” is it not the WORD OF GOD, the bible. So let me ask you again Pax. What can you, your church, or any man (I would add your churchs’ tradition) give that is needed more than this?

To which you reply your litany of things that I could only assume that you did think were equal to the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ because you prefaced each statement with
“I have answered your question” I have emboldened that question above. The “this” in my question is the “record that God gave of his Son” 1Jn.5:10. That record is of coarse the bible. Then I wrote a post asking you to confirm whether or not you really did think that these things were equal to the sacrifice of Jesus. In this post you called me “disingenuous” For making such an outlandish enquiry. Now You accuse me of attempting to create a strawman with my question. The same question to which you had already posted “I have answered your question” many times. All this is beginning to look a little defensive to me and your accusations meant as a diversion. I’m thinking that you really do believe that all these things in your post really are needed as much as the sacrifice of Christ. Because of this statement. **“Things that are necessary and important parts of something are not to be attacked by asking if those parts are somehow greater than the whole.” **By way of a small defense here. I never attacked any of the things in your list. I only asked for confirmation if that is what you really believed. So, I guess you have finally given me confirmation that you really do believe that all these are **“Things that are necessary and important parts of something” ** That something being the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You see Pax the ONLY reason Jesus set up His church is to tell the world about Him. All these things that you posted in your list of “Things that are necessary” are not necessary at all.

Here is what is necessary
Psalm 51
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

12Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

13Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.

15O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.

16For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Where do we find record of “the joy of thy salvation” Well that would be the “record that God gave of his Son.” 1Jn. 5:10 and that would be the bible.

 

[joe370]

Deut. 29:29 -

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”

 

[classictall]

MacArthur, John Piper and James White. Keep in mind however that Sola Scriptura means different things to different Christians and plays itself out differently

 

[Pax]

Ok, Pax this is getting a little tireing and if the point wasn’t so important I thnk that I probably would have moved on by now. Here’s my post that started this exchange:

To which you reply your litany of things that I could only assume that you did think were equal to the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ because you prefaced each statement with
“I have answered your question” I have emboldened that question above. The “this” in my question is the “record that God gave of his Son” 1Jn.5:10. That record is of coarse the bible. Then I wrote a post asking you to confirm whether or not you really did think that these things were equal to the sacrifice of Jesus. In this post you called me “disingenuous” For making such an outlandish enquiry. Now You accuse me of attempting to create a strawman with my question. The same question to which you had already posted “I have answered your question” many times. All this is beginning to look a little defensive to me and your accusations meant as a diversion. I’m thinking that you really do believe that all these things in your post really are needed as much as the sacrifice of Christ. Because of this statement. **“Things that are necessary and important parts of something are not to be attacked by asking if those parts are somehow greater than the whole.” **By way of a small defense here. I never attacked any of the things in your list. I only asked for confirmation if that is what you really believed. So, I guess you have finally given me confirmation that you really do believe that all these are **“Things that are necessary and important parts of something” ** That something being the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You see Pax the ONLY reason Jesus set up His church is to tell the world about Him. All these things that you posted in your list of “Things that are necessary” are not necessary at all.

Here is what is necessary
Psalm 51
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

12Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

13Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.

15O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.

16For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Where do we find record of “the joy of thy salvation” Well that would be the “record that God gave of his Son.” 1Jn. 5:10 and that would be the bible.

Richard in Christ,

The so called litany provided to you has not been rebutted nor has all that was presented showing the inadequacy of sola scriptura. You are way off base in your attempts to make the doctrine of sola scriptura the same as the sacrifice of Christ. There absolutely no logical justification for that gambit.

I think it’s time for you to answer the points and questions that I have previously posed rather than trying to pit the arguments against sola scriptura against the sacrifice of Jesus. That would go a long way in making the discussion more productive and meaningful.

God bless.

P.S. I didn’t attack the question as posed earlier only because I was busy with many other aspects of the argument. If you read all of my posts you will clearly see that I have disagreed with much of your approach. Please also understand that I say these things with respect.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Joe370

Pius 1X declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.”

so you put your trust in the church?

 

[Jerry_Marino]

*One has only to do the maths!

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and the Protestants for 500 years - how can anyone say that it was the Protestants who named the Catholic Church?

:tsktsk:*

actually constatine started up the roman catholic church, in scripture you will find that the early Christians were known to be part of ‘the way’

 

[Michael_Vernon]

Hello, folks. Twenty-five years ago I was a Mormon (LDS), and before I joined the Catholic Church, I literally studied in-depth every living religion. Moreover, during the past twenty years, I have frequently visited and studied other Christian denominations, from Calvinists to Sabatarians. So I am not speaking from a standpoint of ignorance or naivete when I say that no one simply holds to Sola Scriptura. Every Christian inherits or acquires some religious tradition which becomes the lens through which he interprets Scripture. If you have never listened to a Preacher and you have never read anything religious except the Bible, then you would still not have Sola Scriptura. You would simply have an eccentrintric or individualistic interpretation of Scripture and a religion of one.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

so you put your trust in the church?

“The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith” (St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)

“The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceed from the Primary Truth, hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith” (St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

so you put your trust in the church?

“I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’ ‘No,’ said the priest, ‘not if you did not know,’ ‘Then why,’ asked the Eskimo, ‘did you tell me?’” (Annie Dillard)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard in Christ,

The so called litany provided to you has not been rebutted nor has all that was presented showing the inadequacy of sola scriptura. You are way off base in your attempts to make the doctrine of sola scriptura the same as the sacrifice of Christ. There absolutely no logical justification for that gambit.

I think it’s time for you to answer the points and questions that I have previously posed rather than trying to pit the arguments against sola scriptura against the sacrifice of Jesus. That would go a long way in making the discussion more productive and meaningful.

God bless.

P.S. I didn’t attack the question as posed earlier only because I was busy with many other aspects of the argument. If you read all of my posts you will clearly see that I have disagreed with much of your approach. Please also understand that I say these things with respect.

Ok, here’s your points. Let’s go through them one by one to see how or if they relate to “sola scriptura” Now to be clear I am using my definition of “sola scriptura” that being that scripture is all sufficient to manefest to us Jesus Christ, His sacrifice and all that is required of us to recieve eternal life, that Jesus and His sacrifice are manifest completely and totally in the bible (scripture) and are not contingent upon His church or what you refer to as “oral tradition” a term not found in the bible by the way. We must also be clear that these are answers to my question that is emboldened below.

1Jn.5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

What is “the record that God gave” is it not the WORD OF GOD, the bible. So let me ask you again Pax. What can you, your church, or any man (I would add your churchs’ tradition) give that is needed more than this?

I already answered your question by pointing to the actions taken by the first council of Jerusalem described in the book of Acts. They made a decision on circumcision that was not found in scripture.

First of all this point has absolutely nothing to do with sola scriptura as per my definition ie. it has nothing to do with Jesus or His sacrifice. Second because you preface your statement with “I already answered your question” you seem to be saying that this decision is needed more than the biblical record of Jesus and His sacrifice. So, it is you that is pitting your so called argument against sola scriptura (which is no argument at all, given my definition of it) and not me.

Likewise, I answered the question when I pointed out that scripture did not self assemble, and that it was the Church that determined the canon of scripture. It was the Church that separated the inspired word of God from other writings that were not inspired.

Here again because you use the term " I answered the question" You appear to be saying that because (according to you) The CC determined scripture, that that is needed more than the record of the son of God. This also has nothing to do with sola scriptura as per my definition.

The canon of scripture comes to us as tradition established by Church decree and is not to be violated.

This one is a joke right? Scripture is not tradition it is the divinely inspired WORD OF GOD.

I also answered this question in pointing out that only the Church can decide upon problems and issues between believers per Matt 17:18.

Here’s Matt.17:18 18And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?

I also answered this question by pointing to the church solving the problems with heresies which is something scripture cannot do when it comes to competing interpretations of scripture that are used to justify heretical ideas versus the truth.

The church as a problem solver (something Christ never intended for His church, by the way) has nothing to do with sola scriptura as per my definition. But according to you this fact is needed more than the record of the son of God. Your doing not mine.

Your question has also been answered by the fact that scripture tells us to follow oral traditions but does not list those oral traditions. Only the Church can protect, provide, and apply those teachings that came through by oral tradition as opposed to those things written by letter.

Also nothing to do with sola scriptura and according to you not me is needed more than God’s record of His Son

Your question has also been answered by the fact that scripture tells us that the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The truth of scripture needs the pillar and bulwark of the truth, i.e. the church, to provide the “sure word as taught.”

The fact that Christ set up His church as a means to lift Him (the Truth) up has nothing to do with the fact that that truth is contained in scripture and the realisation of this “fact” is not needed more than God’s record of His Son.

Your question has also been answered by the evidence of untold numbers of conflicting teachings and divisions in Christianity that result from individual interpretation of scripture that conflict with the “sure word as taught.”

How is the fact that God’s word is taught errantly any argument that God’s record is not sufficient to reveal His Son and why would you think that this “evidence” is needed more than God’s record of His Son. As you imply when you say “Your question has also been answered”

Your question has also been answered by the evidence of scripture’s own witness where Peter says that “Paul’s letters have things in them that are difficult to understand” and that “no prophecy[teaching] of scripture is a matter of individual interpretation.”

I don’t understand why some scripture is hard to understand and is inspired by the Spirit of God is any argument that that scripture is not all sufficient to reveal the Son of God and why would you think this is needed more than the record of Jesus? Because you say it is when you say “Your question has also been answered” not me.

[quoteI also answered your question by way of my discussion about the Bereans vis-a-vis the Jews at the synagogue in Thessalonica.
[/quote]

Well the Bereans where in Berea. The Thesssalanicans were in Thessalonica. So I’m not sure what you are talking about here.

 

[moondweller]

Hello, folks. Twenty-five years ago I was a Mormon (LDS), and before I joined the Catholic Church, I literally studied in-depth every living religion. Moreover, during the past twenty years, I have frequently visited and studied other Christian denominations, from Calvinists to Sabatarians. So I am not speaking from a standpoint of ignorance or naivete when I say that no one simply holds to Sola Scriptura. Every Christian inherits or acquires some religious tradition which becomes the lens through which he interprets Scripture. If you have never listened to a Preacher and you have never read anything religious except the Bible, then you would still not have Sola Scriptura. You would simply have an eccentrintric or individualistic interpretation of Scripture and a religion of one.

SS is not about the interpretation of Scripture. This has been pointed out numerous times on this thread. More than any, AJ’s posts, in particular, have presented and articulated most thoroughly the primary issue pertaining to SS.

 

[Vile_Servant]

To all Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura, I have a very simple question for you:

What is your belief regarding the dogma of the Real Presence? Please use Sola Scriptura to justify your belief.

Note: The dogma of the Real Presence states that in the Eucharist, Jesus Christ is really present in what was previously just bread and wine, and not merely present in symbol, a figure of speech (metaphorically), or by his power (dynamically).

 

[AmericanJosiah]

To all Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura, I have a very simple question for you:

What is your belief regarding the dogma of the Real Presence? Please use Sola Scriptura to justify your belief.

1. There is no such “belief.” Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it’s a PRAXIS (practice). It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us. It is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture FOR THAT PURPOSE.
2. This practice asssumes accountability, and THIS is why Christians disagree on this practice. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for the norming of their doctrines (none of them does) but because they reject the norming of their doctrines; each declares taht each exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong (in these matters anyway) and thus is right so it’s right so there. There is no need in the singular, exclusive, sole case of self alone since self alone declares that self alone cannot be wrong. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87, “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, and the epistemology of virtually every cult.
3. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.
4. Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too: **Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 **There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

Let’s say you and I hire Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, and it is to be 6 feet tall. Bob is done and claims the fense is 6 feet tall (that, then, is his position). Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares? But if truth matters, then we care. Now Bob could just say, “I reject any accountability for my work since I alone say that I alone CANNOT do wrong and thus I don’t - just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.) and then accountability and the question of whether the fense is 6 feet tall has just been circumvented. Otherwise, the claim is subject to norming. The first issue is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for this norming? Perhaps you and I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. We all have one, it’s objective, it’s knowable to us all and alterable by none of us, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose. In that case, it would be the canon (the word literally means “measuring tape”).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[jlhargus]

Let’s say you and I hire Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, and it is to be 6 feet tall. Bob is done and claims the fense is 6 feet tall (that, then, is his position). Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares? But if truth matters, then we care. Now Bob could just say, “I reject any accountability for my work since I alone say that I alone CANNOT do wrong and thus I don’t - just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.) and then accountability and the question of whether the fense is 6 feet tall has just been circumvented.

JL: First you seem to imply the Church teaches whatever in total disregard to scrputure, which is not true. Simple answer the teachings and Traditions of the Church cannot and does not contradict scripture.

Otherwise, the claim is subject to norming. The first issue is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for this norming? Perhaps you and I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. We all have one, it’s objective, it’s knowable to us all and alterable by none of us, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose. In that case, it would be the canon (the word literally means “measuring tape”). I hope that helps. Pax – Josiah .

JL: Sounds nice, so why do we have thousands of divisions and contradicting teachings by sincere faith groups all agreeing with sola scriptura? According to your scenario they should ALL be in agreement, they use the same rule/canon/norma normans for this norming, sola scriptura. What happed? The plain facts are sola scriptura only divides it NEVER unites, as ANYONE can PLAINLY see. That authority ends with self authority as understood by the individual. They move to another group that fits there understanding or they start another faith group with it’s own particular view.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Why do we have thousands of divisions and contradicting teachings by sincere faith groups all agreeing with sola scriptura? According to your scenario they should ALL be in agreement, they use the same rule/canon/norma normans for this norming, sola scriptura. What happed? The plain facts are sola scriptura only divides it NEVER unites, as ANYONE can PLAINLY see. That authority ends with self authority as understood by the individual. They move to another group that fits there understanding or they start another faith group with it’s own particular view.

Not all Christian Churches are Christian: some run it as a health club, on life enhancement principles - “the Bible will give you better life and wellbeing”; some run it as a business, “there’s money to be made” and to others it’s a social club, wherein Christianity is occidental (marginal). Guess each one of us should ask ourselves why we do what we do, and believe what we believe (myself included).

 

[guanophore]

Deut. 29:29 -

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”

God did not reveal everything to us. Some where left secret. There are passages which God intentionally did not make absolutely clear and we are free to interpret it as much as we are able. However, as St. Augustine said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” We are free to have our own personal stand on the non-essentials, however, we must be careful not to be too dogmatic about it and quickly pronounce heresy to those who disagree wiht us. Read CONVICTION WITHOUT COMPROMISE by Drs. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes.

Can you point me to where I can find the list of essentials -vs-non-essentials in Scripture?

also,

Can you explain why Scripture says He explained everything to His apostles, if he did not?

 

[JonNC]

To all Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura, I have a very simple question for you:

What is your belief regarding the dogma of the Real Presence? Please use Sola Scriptura to justify your belief.

Note: The dogma of the Real Presence states that in the Eucharist, Jesus Christ is really present in what was previously just bread and wine, and not merely present in symbol, a figure of speech (metaphorically), or by his power (dynamically).

Properly using the practice of sola scriptura, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession sites scripture, and its proper reflection of it by the ECF’s and the whole of the Church, east and west, in attesting to the Truth that, as it says, “that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present”.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Hope that answerrs your question.
Jon

 

[Vile_Servant]

1. There is no such “belief.” Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it’s a PRAXIS (practice). It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us. It is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture FOR THAT PURPOSE.
2. This practice asssumes accountability, and THIS is why Christians disagree on this practice. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for the norming of their doctrines (none of them does) but because they reject the norming of their doctrines; each declares taht each exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong (in these matters anyway) and thus is right so it’s right so there. There is no need in the singular, exclusive, sole case of self alone since self alone declares that self alone cannot be wrong. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87, “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, and the epistemology of virtually every cult.
3. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.
4. Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too: **Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 **There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

Let’s say you and I hire Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, and it is to be 6 feet tall. Bob is done and claims the fense is 6 feet tall (that, then, is his position). Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares? But if truth matters, then we care. Now Bob could just say, “I reject any accountability for my work since I alone say that I alone CANNOT do wrong and thus I don’t - just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.) and then accountability and the question of whether the fense is 6 feet tall has just been circumvented. Otherwise, the claim is subject to norming. The first issue is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for this norming? Perhaps you and I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. We all have one, it’s objective, it’s knowable to us all and alterable by none of us, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose. In that case, it would be the canon (the word literally means “measuring tape”).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

thx, but you haven’t answered my question regarding what you believe regarding the dogma of the Real Presence, using Sola Scriptura as the basis.