Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Vile_Servant]

“Thou shalt not commit murder.” Murder has always been a sin against God and certainly one’s fellow man (the first recorded was Cain and Abel). With Moses and the Law, for Israel it was not only a sin against God but now a transgression against a specific Divine Commandment. And according to Jesus, one who is but angry with his brother is guilty of murder (Matt. 5:21-22)

OK. How would you then explain that some Christian Churches, for example The United Church of Christ (UCC), which is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination primarily in the Reformed tradition but also historically influenced by Lutheranism, also profess and accept the absolute authority of theopneustos Scripture (sola scriptura) as you have done, yet do not condemn abortion as a grave sin, and strongly support abortion rights?

 

[Vile_Servant]

I did. You gave a list of names. I then asked if Jesus ever named any of them as His church? Did HE ever name His church?

So you consider all of them to belong to His church?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

A faithful Catholic is bound by obedience to give the Roman Catholic Church the utmost respect - what Vatican 2 calls

"the religious submission of intellect and will" (CCC 892)

To a faithful Catholic there is only one absolute authority: the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals. It is the basis of Catholic faith that Christ has entrusted His divine revelation to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and that this Holy Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is infallible in matters of faith and morals - that she is absolute authority in these matters.

The rejection of Sola Scriptura could NEVER be superseded by an affirmation of Sola Scriptura. The consequences would be a collapse of the Church’s infallibility.
As a young professor in 1968 Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XV1, began to insist on “unquestioned obedience” to the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[Pax]

…
…
The rock in question was not originally interpreted, by Eastern or Western theologians, as having anything to do with the papacy; it was understood to be Peter’s confession of faith in Christ.
In the early Church, Paul was able to argue with Peter and prevail. The early Church placed greater emphasis upon conciliary, or harmony of faith, rather than allegiance to a central authority.
In the West, Rome’s power became centralized, because Rome was the sole Western patriarchate and, after the barbarian invasions, the sole symbol of continuing authority. Jesus’ words “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” were given new meaning more appropriate to political circumstance.

Kevin in Christ,

I disagree with some of this and with good reason. The evidence does not support the notion that the early Church understood “the rock” to be Peter’s confession of faith. The ECF’s never separated Peter’s confession from Peter and never argued that Peter was not named “the rock”, nor did they argue against Peter as the “the rock” mentioned in Matthew 16:18. There are some comments by ECF’s that expand and explore the issue beyond that but they do not deny or argue against the obvious.

Likewise, there is not a single example in the biblical record showing where Paul argued with Peter on a definition of doctrine, let alone that he did so and prevailed. The only time that Paul ever confronts Peter about anything is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14 where it says:

But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

In this case Peter was acting hypocritically and Paul rightly called him on it. Please note that Paul says that Peter “stood condemned.” Paul says this because it was Peter who was the “first” recorded in all of the NT to say that the gentiles should not be subject to circumcision and because Peter stood up at the first Council of Jerusalem and settled the matter of circumcision of gentiles. Paul was not disagreeing with any of Peter’s official positions on any teaching or doctrine, but was instead criticizing Peter’s hypocritical behavior. I believe that is a very important distinction that should always be kept in mind.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

…
…

It is those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and confess with their mouth that he is Lord. This is what we must do to be saved. We must acknowledge that we are lost sinners who cannot save ourselves. Our most righteous acts are filthy rags to God. It is only by Christ’s shedding of blood that we have forgiveness. It was what Jesus did at Calvary. NOT anything we do. Sadly, this is a stumbling block to the catholic, Jews and the other groups that teach works are necessary. The apostles never added a long list of qualifications necessary for salvation. They never said do all these church works, they never said salvation was found in them or a church. They always pointed to CHRIST alone.

JacobG in Christ,

You have unwittingly walked into a scriptural buzz saw and a disaster in logic. If you really believe that even our most righteous acts are filthy rags to God, then please be advised that your statements concerning belief in Jesus and confessing with our mouths that he is Lord are also nothing more than filthy rags before God.

So what is the problem here. The problem is that you partially quoted from Isaiah without understanding what the prophet was talking about when he spoke of “filthy rags” within the context of his message. Please note that God was extremely displeased with the chosen people because of their falling into idol worship and sin. It is for this reason that none of their righteous deeds were anything more than filthy rags before God. You can see this by reading Chapters 50 through 63 that precede Isaiah 64:6 where your quote is found. The following is a typical example:

Isaiah 57:3-5
But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore. Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood. Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of rocks?

Absolutely no good thing done by man will please God, if it is done while casting off God in favor of idols and living like pagans. Paul puts it another way. He says the following about sin and does so along that same line of logic. In Romans 14:23, Paul says:

But he who has doubts is condemned…because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

None of this means that the good works done by the Christian in faith and for love of God and neighbor are as “filthy rags” before God. Instead, it is those things done outside of faith that are as “filthy rags” and unpleasing to God.

The following is but a sample of what the NT says about Christian good works and how they can be pleasing to God:

Col 1:9-10
And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.

Phil 4:18
I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

Romans 2:6-8
For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Romans 8:12-14
So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Colossians 1:21-22
And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,

Colossians 3:23-24
Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:11-12
To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 6
They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

Titus 2:11-15
For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

No, guanophore, ONLY the Scriptures are said to be theopneustos (God-breathed, 2 Tim. 3:16). Men can proclaim and speak the “Word of God,” which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to be personally believed (Acts 6:7). Others can attempt to pervert the “Word of God” by adding to it. But ONLY the Scriptures are said to be theopneustos (God-breathed). Hence, the only canon provided by God for Christ’s church to test the teachings (doctrines) of men, within and without. There is none higher - NONE. All “Christianity” is accountable to the theopneustos Scriptures, just as all Israel (national) was accountable to the Scriptures given to her. Since Moses God has preserved His Word in this world by means of theopneustos Scripture. And men, refusing to be accountable to it, have rebelled against its absolute authority ever since.

Moon in Christ,

Are not the traditions handed on by word of mouth[2 Thess 2:15] also inspired? Likewise, are you contending that no one has ever received divine inspiration since the writing of the NT letters?

God bless.

 

[moondweller]

OK. How would you then explain that some Christian Churches, for example The United Church of Christ (UCC), which is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination primarily in the Reformed tradition but also historically influenced by Lutheranism, also profess and accept the absolute authority of theopneustos Scripture (sola scriptura) as you have done, yet do not condemn abortion as a grave sin, and strongly support abortion rights?

I don’t know if what you say about the UCC is true as to its stand on abortion rights or its stance on SS. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that what you say is correct. Are you asking me how I might explain hypocrisy? Does hypocrisy nullify the truth? Did Peter’s hypocrisy, recorded in Gal. 2:11-21, nullify the truth of the grace of God as revealed in the gospel which he himself preached?

Sola Scriptura does not stand or fall on the actions or beliefs of men, nor those of their religious organizations, but on what the Scriptures are inherently.

So you consider all of them to belong to His church?

According to the Scriptures Christ is “head of the church” which is His body. He is called “the Savior of the body,” hence, ONLY the SAVED (these being individuals, not earthly, religious institutions) make up “His body,” which is His church (see Eph. 5:23; cf. Col. 1:18), which has no name.

As I pointed out in a previous post, the Scriptures also recognize “churches,” which are local assemblies made up of believers and unbelievers, saved and unsaved; some no saved at all but are completely apostate. But as the Scriptures say, Christ is “the Savior of the body,” not “churches,” no matter what name you wish to call them.

 

[moondweller]

Moon in Christ,

Are not the traditions handed on by word of mouth[2 Thess 2:15] also inspired? Likewise, are you contending that no one has ever received divine inspiration since the writing of the NT letters?

God bless.

“Theopneustos” (God-breathed) refers ONLY to the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16).

 

[Pax]

“Theopneustos” (God-breathed) refers ONLY to the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16).

MD in Christ,

You side stepped my two part question…please address each item in specific terms.

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Pax]

“Theopneustos” (God-breathed) refers ONLY to the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16).

MD in Christ,

If you wish to depend upon 2 Tim 3:16 for your contention that only the scriptures are God breathed, then be aware that 2 Tim 3:16 is only referring to the OT because the reference is to the scriptures that Timothy knew from his youth, which can only mean the OT.

I, of course, have no problem acknowledging that all scripture OT and NT is God breathed, but I would contend that the “traditions by word of mouth” are also God breathed. Likewise, I believe that God does give us personal inspiration as well as inspiration to his Church. If you disagree with me please carefully explain why and if possible show why I am mistaken by way of scripture.

God bless.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Kevin in Christ,

I disagree with some of this and with good reason. The evidence does not support the notion that the early Church understood “the rock” to be Peter’s confession of faith. The ECF’s never separated Peter’s confession from Peter and never argued that Peter was not named “the rock”, nor did they argue against Peter as the “the rock” mentioned in Matthew 16:18. There are some comments by ECF’s that expand and explore the issue beyond that but they do not deny or argue against the obvious.

Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, A concise exposition, Fr. Michael Pomazansky, pp. 228-9:

‘The Orthodox Church of Christ refuses to recognise another head of the Church in the form of a “Vicar of Christ on earth,” a title given in the Roman Catholic Church to the Bishop of Rome. Such a title does not correspond either to the word of God or to the universal Church consciousness and tradition; it tears away the Church on earth from immediate unity with the heavenly Church. A vicar is assigned during the absence of the one replaced; but Christ is invisibly present in His Church always…
Concerning the rock upon which the Lord promised the Apostle Peter to found His Church, St Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his epistle to the clergy of Palestine after the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) writes: “When the chief and first Apostle Peter said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, the Lord replied, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but My Father which is in heaven, and I say also unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Mtt. 16: 17 - 18). **On this confession the Church of God is made firm, and this Faith, given to us by the holy Apostles, the Church has kept and will keep to the end of the world.” **’

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Kevin in Christ,

In this case Peter was acting hypocritically and Paul rightly called him on it. Please note that Paul says that Peter “stood condemned.” Paul says this because it was Peter who was the “first” recorded in all of the NT to say that the gentiles should not be subject to circumcision and because Peter stood up at the first Council of Jerusalem and settled the matter of circumcision of gentiles. Paul was not disagreeing with any of Peter’s official positions on any teaching or doctrine, but was instead criticizing Peter’s hypocritical behavior. I believe that is a very important distinction that should always be kept in mind.

The first Pope condemned as a hypocrite:shrug:

Among the Apostles when there appeared to be need to appeal to a higher authoritative voice or judgement - as in connection with the important misunderstandings that arose in Antioch regarding the ritual law of Moses - the Apostles gathered in a Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), and the decrees of this Council were acknowledged as binding on the whole Church (Acts 16: 4). By this the Apostles showed by example the necessity of conciliar resolution: The highest organ of authority in the Church is a council of bishops.

 

[JonNC]

Using sola scriptura as the norm, how would you judge and evaluate Calvinism’s denial of the doctrine of the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Christian Eucharist?

Sola scriptura is not the norm, scripture is. But anyway, the Lutheran Confessions tell us that the whole of the Church, both east and west, profess the real presence, and that this is in keeping with Christ’s own words, “this is my body”, and the teaching of Paul.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sola scriptura fits every definition that I have found in various dictionaries.

Here’s one as an example:

doctrine:

n.
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.

Clearly, “sola scriptura” fits the definition of a doctrine. I think it’s disingenuous to argue otherwise.

God bless.

So, you found a Lutheran dictionary?

Some say it is disingenuous for Catholics to argue that they don’t worship Mary. I disagree with them because Catholics tell me they do not, and I believe them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

OK. How would you then explain that some Christian Churches, for example The United Church of Christ (UCC), which is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination primarily in the Reformed tradition but also historically influenced by Lutheranism, also profess and accept the absolute authority of theopneustos Scripture (sola scriptura) as you have done, yet do not condemn abortion as a grave sin, and strongly support abortion rights?

Seems we didn’t influence them nearly enough.

I would suggest that I have a lot more in common with the CC than the UCC.

Jon

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

“Holy Scripture is a part of the tradition of the Church. It is that tradition which affirms the value of the holy books in the Church…The Church has given us the Bible through tradition, and the Reformers themselves received the Bible from the Church and by the Church, that is to say by tradition” (Father Sergius Bulgakov)

The Scripture lives as a part of a creative organism with its ultimate fulfillment in an eschatalogical future.

“The Bible was not the starting-point of the Christian faith, but a summary of it: not the whole of revelation, but a part: not the foundation of the Church, but its product. The Church preceded the Bible” (C.G. Pallas. Word Magazine, April 1965, pp. 10 - 12)

 

[JonNC]

“Holy Scripture is a part of the tradition of the Church. It is that tradition which affirms the value of the holy books in the Church…The Church has given us the Bible through tradition, and the Reformers themselves received the Bible from the Church and by the Church, that is to say by tradition” (Father Sergius Bulgakov)

The Scripture lives as a part of a creative organism with its ultimate fulfillment in an eschatalogical future.

“The Bible was not the starting-point of the Christian faith, but a summary of it: not the whole of revelation, but a part: not the foundation of the Church, but its product. **The Church preceded the Bible” **(C.G. Pallas. Word Magazine, April 1965, pp. 10 - 12)

And yet, Kevin, the entirety of the OT predates Pentecost, and therefore, the Church. Is this a contradiction?

Jon

 

[Pax]

So, you found a Lutheran dictionary?

Some say it is disingenuous for Catholics to argue that they don’t worship Mary. I disagree with them because Catholics tell me they do not, and I believe them.

Jon

JonNC in Christ,

I did not use a Lutheran dictionary…any standard dictionary will do. It seems obvious to me that “sola scriptura” is a doctrine in that it meets the common definition of a doctrine. Please explain to me why it is not a doctrine.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

And yet, Kevin, the entirety of the OT predates Pentecost, and therefore, the Church. Is this a contradiction?

Jon

While Jesus was on Earth He said “I will build my Church” (Mtt 16: 18)

• Church - noun
• Church - verb

‘Ekklesia’, the Greek word translated as ‘Church’ in the New Testament is often used to refer to Israel in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint).

“This is (Jesus) that Moses, which…was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai” (Acts 7: 37, 38)

The Apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were added to the Church already existing (Acts 2: 47)

 

[Roblox84]

“Holy Scripture is a part of the tradition of the Church. It is that tradition which affirms the value of the holy books in the Church…The Church has given us the Bible through tradition, and the Reformers themselves received the Bible from the Church and by the Church, that is to say by tradition” (Father Sergius Bulgakov)

The Scripture lives as a part of a creative organism with its ultimate fulfillment in an eschatalogical future.

“The Bible was not the starting-point of the Christian faith, but a summary of it: not the whole of revelation, but a part: not the foundation of the Church, but its product. The Church preceded the Bible” (C.G. Pallas. Word Magazine, April 1965, pp. 10 - 12)

What you said is why I alway’s wondered what some people are really thinking. If the church came first and then the bible, shouldn’t that tell them something?