Does Sola Scriptura even exist?

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What is the Cambridge declaration?

Ask Syele. She’s the one promoting it. Not me.

 

[lak611]

Sola Scriptura
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Soli Deo Gloria

You can read the Cambridge Declaration here.

Thank you. That helps!

 

[Syele]

Ask Syele. She’s the one promoting it. Not me.

I’m not really “promoting it”, I’m trying to get you people to argue intelligentally. . IF you want to argue sola scriptura , I’m just saying argue it in the spirit it was coined in, not based on what random people say.

If I tried this method of arguing on you guys, you’d try and run me off CAF! You use it and I’m suddenly “promoting things”. I’m not Calvinist. Never have been. I’m just saying if you want to argue something, have some clue what it is/where it came from before you begin.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Please cite for me which parts of scripture are not authoritative. Also tell me by what authority you believe this.

When did I say that any part of the Scriptures were not authoritative?

You already know that I believe that Christ endowed the Catholic Church to teach the authentic meaning of the Scriptures by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Don’t you beleive the same thing about your own denomination?

Looking at the next part of your post, it seems that way to me.

Syele:

You know from talking with me before that I do not believe the scriptures can be interpreted without the help of the Holy Spirit. Some reason you are trying to get me to argue for something I do not believe?

Then what exactly are you arguing for?

The whole point of Atreyu bringing this up is precisely because those who espouse to hold to Sola Scriptura do not actually do as they claim to do. More often than not, the definitions provided are vague enough to mean whatever those who hold the doctrine in question want it to mean.

I suppose, in this sense, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura appears to be akin to a very mild form of bibliomancy on some levels, a kind of divination using a book-- sometimes even including a Bible. In bibliomancy, the book in question is basically opened at a random page and, while keeping one’s eyes closed, one points at a line or passage in the book and claims to find some profound spiritual or prophetic insight.

Obviously, protestant theology is not reducible to bibliomancy. There’s been a lot of truly Spirit led exegesis in many protestant theologies in my opinion, Spirit led exegesis which has truly resulted in fruits of the Holy Spirit being authentically manifested by God himself.

Nonetheless, the practice of bibliomancy tends to be similar to these thologies in the sense that they always seem to find exactly what they already wanted to find in the Scriptures, effectively picking and choosing, randomly out of context at times, in order to demonstrate that their interpretation is correct.

Syele:

Again the origional point of Sola Scriptura was to say deny the authority of the magistrate as being MORE authoritative than scripture, not to deny all forms of help in interpretation.

So then who interprets the Scriptures authentically by the Holy Spirit?

I beleive that other denominations outside the Catholic Church certainly capture truly Spirit led insights into God’s will. But none of them contain the fullness of truth as expounded within Catholicism.

Do you believe any differently about your own denomination?

Syele:

Are you arguing against the Cambridge Declaration or just a random definition of Sola Scriptura that you particularly dislike?

I’m asking you to point out the Cambridge Declaration in the Scriptures.

If it’s there, then this shouldn’t be too hard to point out.

Syele:

You only relocate the same problem. The lay people cannot possibly comply with the magisterium unless they fully understand them. The people are still falliable and prone to error. You still have to excercise private judgement in order to understand and follow the law. It is very Good that people can be personally guided by the Holy Spirit.

How have I relocated anything?

Catholicism has said from the beginning that Jesus betowed his teaching authority upon the totality his Church by the Holy Spirit.

I’ve never said it wasn’t good when they are truly guided by the Holy Spirit. I’ve only said that Christ would never leave his Church without some central, visible authority in God would use to bind the consiousnesses of the faithful. This is consistent with the Scriptural record too.

How exacty do you prove whether something or some teaching is truly guided by the Holy Spirit or not?

Does your church not also claim to have some God-given authority to teach the true meaning of the Scriptures accurately?

And if Armenianism doesn’t teach this, then what guarantee do you have that your denomination is teaching the truth as God has revealed it?

There is only one faith Syele, and all believers share in this one faith. God didn’t leave us as ophans either.

 

[lak611]

I’m not really “promoting it”, I’m trying to get you people to argue intelligentally. . IF you want to argue sola scriptura , I’m just saying argue it in the spirit it was coined in, not based on what random people say.

If I tried this method of arguing on you guys, you’d try and run me off CAF! You use it and I’m suddenly “promoting things”. I’m not Calvinist. Never have been. I’m just saying if you want to argue something, have some clue what it is/where it came from before you begin.

I do NOT get the impression that you are promoting the Cambridge Declaration. Actually, after reading it, the impression I get is that somebody cannot be “sola scriptura” only. The other 4 solas combined with “sola scriptura” are connected. It seems that the authors of the Cambridge declaration are saying that Protestants are messing up their own understanding by not following all 5 solas. Just my :twocents:

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m not really “promoting it”, I’m trying to get you people to argue intelligentally. . IF you want to argue sola scriptura , I’m just saying argue it in the spirit it was coined in, not based on what random people say.

If I tried this method of arguing on you guys, you’d try and run me off CAF! You use it and I’m suddenly “promoting things”. I’m not Calvinist. Never have been. I’m just saying if you want to argue something, have some clue what it is/where it came from before you begin.

Fine. Then stop quoting huge chunks of text and give me your definition of Sola Scriptura.

I would like to examine it further.

 

[Syele]

When did I say that any part of the Scriptures were not authoritative?

You implied it when you said it was authoritative on “many things”. Why not on all the things it covers?

You already know that I believe that Christ endowed the Catholic Church to teach the authentic meaning of the Scriptures by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Don’t you beleive the same thing about your own denomination?

I grew up in inter-denominational and non-denominational churches. These teach that all humans are falliable and therefore no human organization can be infalliable. This is why Protestants spend much time verifying in the Scriptures what our leaders tell us. Christ sent the Holy Spirit to teach us. The Holy Spirit dosn’t make mistakes, people do. Some people are gifted to teach, this dosn’t make them perfect at it, only better at it than others.

The whole point of Atreyu bringing this up is precisely because those who espouse to hold to Sola Scriptura do not actually do as they claim to do. More often than not, the definitions provided are vague enough to mean whatever those who hold the doctrine in question want it to mean.

Atreyu is:

1. Seperating sola Scriptura from the group of 5 solas and therefore making the meaning skewed from the origional.
2. Assuming the definition he chose is the mainstream one.
3. Ignoring the reasons behind the origional coining of the term.
4. Concluding it dosn’t exist based entirely on conjecture.

And Catholics usually accuse Protestants of being ignorant of History.

 

[Syele]

Fine. Then stop quoting huge chunks of text and give me your definition of Sola Scriptura.

I would like to examine it further.

LOL I don’t blame you for Forgetting our previous conversation where I already did that, it was pretty long.

Godfrey:

Let me begin with certain clarifications so as not to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that all truth is to be found in the Bible, or that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to His people. I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader. Nor am I arguing that the church—both the people of God and the ministerial office—is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: “For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.”1
The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things *necessary *for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

PS. My computer time is up for tonight. ttyl.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You implied it when you said it was authoritative on “many things”. Why not on all the things it covers?

It doesn’t speak authoritatively on the issue of slavery. In fact, the Christian Scriptures says it’s ok to sell oneself into slavery.

Do you think it’s ok to sell yourself into slavery?

If not, then why not-- especially if the Scriptures do not speak authoritatively on this topic?

Syele:

I grew up in inter-denominational and non-denominational churches. These teach that all humans are falliable and therefore no human organization can be infalliable.

But if Christians can believe that God used erring humans as penmen, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error…

then…

Why can’t these same Christians believe as Catholicism does that God also used erring humans as church leaders, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they taught, keeping them from all error too?

Syele:

This is why Protestants spend much time verifying in the Scriptures what our leaders tell us.

But if all humans are falliable and therefore no human organization can be infalliable, then what guarantee do your leaders have that their studies are accurate?

Syele:

Christ sent the Holy Spirit to teach us. The Holy Spirit dosn’t make mistakes, people do.

Right. And if people are fallible, then what guarantee do you have that their teachings are by the Holy Spirit?

Syele:

Some people are gifted to teach, this dosn’t make them perfect at it, only better at it than others.

Again, I ask, if people are fallible, then what guarantee do you have that their teachings are by the Holy Spirit? How do you know that their teachings are better than others?

In John 6:29 Jesus said, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

In John 5:37-40 we read…

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Jesus also said in John 18:37…

You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

Jesus also said in Luke 10:16…

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

And, later, his own apostles echo these same words…
1 John 4:6:

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

It is clear, from the Scriptures alone, that the ones that God sent are the ones we should listen too, from Jesus straight up through to his apostles. And there is no indication in the Scriptures at all that this transmission of teaching authority would ever be broken either.

Syele:

Atreyu is:

1. Seperating sola Scriptura from the group of 5 solas and therefore making the meaning skewed from the origional.
2. Assuming the definition he chose is the mainstream one.
3. Ignoring the reasons behind the origional coining of the term.
4. Concluding it dosn’t exist based entirely on conjecture.

And Catholics usually accuse Protestants of being ignorant of History.

No. Atreyu is basically saying that the definitions of Sola Scriptura are essentially meaningless upon further examination. They are no different from the traditions of men, something which non-Catholics routinely accuse Catholics of doing.

 

[Atreyu]

So, Protestants believe that the Bible contains everything that is necessary to our salvation from the standpoint of doctrine. If it is important, God ensured that it was written down in Scripture. Traditions that exist apart from Scripture, or cannot reasonably be proven by reasoning directly from Scripture, cannot be binding. It may be correct, it may be wrong. It may be worth doing, maybe it should be avoided. But it is not required.

You know what? This isn’t too far from Catholicism, in my opinion. However, you and I would disagree of course on things that can be reasoned directly from Scripture - the Immaculate Conception being a case in point. Another case in point is something that Ex has spoken about - listening to authority. Someone asked me who has the final word. I’m pretty sure this is a trap - they were expecting me to say “the Pope” or “the Church” or something, when of course it is God that has the final say. However, on Earth, the Church does have the final say in things. This is proved in a reasonable way from Scripture alone, as per Ex’s posts. The one passage I didn’t see him mention was the following, from 1 Timothy 3:15 (paraphrased):
The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth

 

[Atreyu]

Atreyu is:

1. Seperating sola Scriptura from the group of 5 solas and therefore making the meaning skewed from the origional.
2. Assuming the definition he chose is the mainstream one.
3. Ignoring the reasons behind the origional coining of the term.
4. Concluding it dosn’t exist based entirely on conjecture.

And Catholics usually accuse Protestants of being ignorant of History.

I guess the point of my post is to try to show that everyone interprets Scripture while being partial to some kind of tradition, and therefore sola scriptura does not exist. Maybe this is a bit simplistic. Anyway, I’m not sure in what way I’ve separated this sola from the other five. I mean, I’m looking at this one alone, but in what way am I contradicting any of the other five in doing this? I’m not quite sure what you mean by this.

And so what is the mainstream definition of sola scriptura? I suppose you’ll say something like, tradition helps us to interpret Scripture, and what I’m proposing is something more akin to solo scriptura. But what if I said that your tradition nullifies the word of God, in that it contradicts the authority that God has vested in the Church?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You know what? This isn’t too far from Catholicism, in my opinion. However, you and I would disagree of course on things that can be reasoned directly from Scripture - the Immaculate Conception being a case in point. Another case in point is something that Ex has spoken about - listening to authority. Someone asked me who has the final word. I’m pretty sure this is a trap - they were expecting me to say “the Pope” or “the Church” or something, when of course it is God that has the final say. However, on Earth, the Church does have the final say in things. This is proved in a reasonable way from Scripture alone, as per Ex’s posts. The one passage I didn’t see him mention was the following, from 1 Timothy 3:15 (paraphrased):
The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth

Amen Atreyu.

And Ephesians 3:10-11 also says…

His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Paul also says in 2 Corinthians 13:7-8, when people were demanding that Paul prove that Christ was speaking through him…

Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

The Church, accoridng to the Scriptures, is the pillar and foundation of the truth, revealing the manifold wisdom of God to all-- and, in this sense, the Church cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

When one adds to this the knowledge of Jesus’ words to St. Peter regarding the Church being unassaultable by the powers of hell, I don’t think one could argue that the Church has not been given a divine authority by God to clearly teach by God’s Holy Spirit-- superintending them as they teach, keeping them from all error, just as he has done with the production of the Scriptures too.

 

[brkn1]

I find it odd that Mr. Ex Nihilo would use (1st Timothy 3:15) to define the Church, since that chapter Paul is talking about the requirement that the “clergy” (bishops and deacons) must be married and have their household w/children ruled well.

I thought the RCC claimed that the actual Church is only composed of the clergy, with all others being simply members of the Church, but not the Church itself. The RCC clergy does not measure up to Paul’s requirements, especially (1st Timothy 4:3) “forbidding to marry”. It’s no wonder they need extra-biblical writings.

 

[Atreyu]

I find it odd that Mr. Ex Nihilo would use (1st Timothy 3:15) to define the Church, since that chapter Paul is talking about the requirement that the “clergy” (bishops and deacons) must be married and have their household w/children ruled well.

There is no such requirement. There may be a requirement that clergy be married to no more than one wife, but this doesn’t equate to saying that a member of the clergy must be married. When taken together with Paul’s writings about celibacy, such an idea that the clergy must be married doesn’t hold water. What about Paul himself? He wasn’t married!

I thought the RCC claimed that the actual Church is only composed of the clergy, with all others being simply members of the Church, but not the Church itself.

Where did you get this idea from? It doesn’t sound right to me.

The RCC clergy does not measure up to Paul’s requirements, especially (1st Timothy 4:3) “forbidding to marry”. It’s no wonder they need extra-biblical writings.

The Catholic Church does not forbid people to marry. On the contrary, the Latin rite (only!) of the Catholic Church will not ordain a married man. This is not an absolute position, as married priests from some other denominations are allowed to become Catholic priests if they convert, under certain conditions.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I find it odd that Mr. Ex Nihilo would use (1st Timothy 3:15) to define the Church, since that chapter Paul is talking about the requirement that the “clergy” (bishops and deacons) must be married and have their household w/children ruled well.

In the case of the celibacy, which both Jesus and Paul commended over marriage if I recall correctly, the congregation are effectively the preist’s children.

I thought the RCC claimed that the actual Church is only composed of the clergy, with all others being simply members of the Church, but not the Church itself. The RCC clergy does not measure up to Paul’s requirements, especially (1st Timothy 4:3) “forbidding to marry”. It’s no wonder they need extra-biblical writings.

Indeed, it is odd.

Especially since we don’t forbid anyone to marry.

Don’t confuse Paul’s rallying cry against the gnostics of his day who were perverting the Scriptures – the gnositics who thought that all material was evil, and who did indeed forbid everyone in their faith from marrying – with the theology of Catholicism.

Marriage is a sacrament within the Catholic Church, so it is not forbidden among the laity. In fact, unlike the gnostics that Paul was speaking out against, marriage is encouraged and considered a sin within Catholicism to have sex without this sacrament.

And, consequently, celibate priests are considered to be married to God. This is similar to the other examples of celibacy prior to the emergence of Christianity.

Nonethless, coming back to Sola Scriptura, consider Jesus’ words…
John 5:37-40:

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.

You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life.

These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

As Jesus himself said in regards to the Scriptures, you diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. But you don’t possess eternal life simply because you diligently study the Scriptures. These are the Scriptures that testify about Jesus-- and yet you refuse to come to those Jesus has sent to have life.

So much for Sola Scriptura…

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, and under inspiration and direction of the Spirit, the Gospel and traditions taught were written down formed into the New Testament of Scripture. And the Church is suppose to discipline (Matthew 18:17). But under what authority is used by the church to show the person his sin?

The ordinary way is to teach the person how to do an Examination of Conscience, and invite him to attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation if he finds that he has sinned.

If someone has sinned publicly, for example, a politician claiming to be Catholic, and promoting abortion and/or homosexual marriage, his Bishop can publicly excommunicate him, after discerning that he is not repenting of these sinful attitudes. This has happened quite frequently in recent months.

People are also privately excommunicated under a variety of circumstances; for example, if a Catholic woman has an abortion, she is automatically excommunicated; same with a Catholic doctor who performs an abortion, or anyone who works for or supports any organization that provides abortions as a primary service to the public.

This is done by the authority given by Christ to the Apostles (see John 20:19-23), and passed down by them through the laying on of hands to the Bishops, on down to the present time, through the Sacrament of Ordination.

 

[Syele]

I guess the point of my post is to try to show that everyone interprets Scripture while being partial to some kind of tradition, and therefore sola scriptura does not exist. Maybe this is a bit simplistic. Anyway, I’m not sure in what way I’ve separated this sola from the other five. I mean, I’m looking at this one alone, but in what way am I contradicting any of the other five in doing this? I’m not quite sure what you mean by this.

They weren’t written to be looked at alone. Alone they become skewed to the point of exaggeration, together you see that it means Scripture should be considered only with the other four: **** Grace, Christ, Faith, Glory of God***. Scripture Alone ***as per the latin term is not a completely accurate term for what is being described.****As a group along with TULIP you have a summary of Calvinism. Seperating it is like trying to figure out the function of a dog’s tail without knowledge of what a dog is or the fact that the tail is only one part of the body.

There are many definitions of Sola Scriptura because Arminianism has similar beliefs in the areas of the 5 solas, but have to modify it in order to claim we believe it. So you get lots of Arminians looking at the Cambridge Declaration version and saying “well I believe the Bible is authoritative and useful for teaching etc, but…” And bam! A new version of Sola Scriptura is born.

---

And so what is the mainstream definition of sola scriptura? I suppose you’ll say something like, tradition helps us to interpret Scripture, and what I’m proposing is something more akin to solo scriptura.

The mainstream definition would be the Calvinist one, and the one listed in the Cambridge Declaration. (That would be why I linked to it yesterday.) That definition is the one that fits with the other five.

But what if I said that your tradition nullifies the word of God, in that it contradicts the authority that God has vested in the Church?

Well I’d start by saying that I have serious doubts that you even have a clear understanding of what exactly my tradition is, much less weather it contradicts the authority that God has vested in the Church. As far as I can tell from your posts in this thread, you have made some pretty wild assumptions.

 

[Syele]

It doesn’t speak authoritatively on the issue of slavery. In fact, the Christian Scriptures says it’s ok to sell oneself into slavery.

Do you think it’s ok to sell yourself into slavery?

If not, then why not-- especially if the Scriptures do not speak authoritatively on this topic?

But if Christians can believe that God used erring humans as penmen, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error…

then…

Why can’t these same Christians believe as Catholicism does that God also used erring humans as church leaders, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they taught, keeping them from all error too?

But if all humans are falliable and therefore no human organization can be infalliable, then what guarantee do your leaders have that their studies are accurate?

Right. And if people are fallible, then what guarantee do you have that their teachings are by the Holy Spirit?

Again, I ask, if people are fallible, then what guarantee do you have that their teachings are by the Holy Spirit? How do you know that their teachings are better than others?

In John 6:29 Jesus said, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

In John 5:37-40 we read…

Jesus also said in John 18:37…

Jesus also said in Luke 10:16…

And, later, his own apostles echo these same words…

It is clear, from the Scriptures alone, that the ones that God sent are the ones we should listen too, from Jesus straight up through to his apostles. And there is no indication in the Scriptures at all that this transmission of teaching authority would ever be broken either.

sigh I have previously answered all of these questions from you. I’m really not up to repeating my self ad nausuem. Let me sum up where we left off… We debated for a couple weeks and you concluded that I don’t even believe in Sola Scriptura in the first place. We agreed not to discuss it any further due to my reluctance to move on the the subject of Church Authority.

No. Atreyu is basically saying that the definitions of Sola Scriptura are essentially meaningless upon further examination. They are no different from the traditions of men, something which non-Catholics routinely accuse Catholics of doing.

Why don’t you let him speak for himself? It is his thread after all.

 

[Atreyu]

Well I’d start by saying that I have serious doubts that you even have a clear understanding of what exactly my tradition is, much less weather it contradicts the authority that God has vested in the Church. As far as I can tell from your posts in this thread, you have made some pretty wild assumptions.

What assumptions have I made? That everyone is influenced by their own tradition when interpreting Scripture? Is that a wild assumption, is it?

In my opinion, people are influenced by their own tradition and so when they interpret Scripture, they do so in a way that supports their tradition. So when a Protestant interprets Scripture in such a way that there is no person on Earth in authority over them, they only interpret the Scriptures in this way for the sake of their tradition. In this way, their tradition is nullifying the written word of God.

Please notice that I didn’t say that all Protestants do this.

 

[Atreyu]

Why don’t you let him speak for himself? It is his thread after all.

Because I sometimes have problems with clearly saying what I am trying to say. Ex figured out what I’m trying to say, and so he said it clearer than I have done.