Does Sola Scriptura even exist?

[Syele]

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

Well, you seem to have assumed that sola scritpura can make sense seperated from the other 4. You seem to assume That any protestant not accepting the authority of the the Catholic Chruch believes in whatever version of Sola Scriptura you seem to be complaining about. (yet I’m not clear on why you chose that one) And you appear to be assuming that I will assume you mean all protestants follow their own traditions.

On the last one there, it is human nature to follow traditions. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find someone who follows NO traditions at all. I don’t think that is even humanly possible! The arguement is NOT about a disposal of tradition… it is simply against making tradition more authoritative than Scripture.

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.

This is a risk, If one is truly guided by the Holy Spirit they will come out whith the proper result reguardless of tradition. When they insisist on being guided by themselves, all sorts of Heresies and misguided things result. No, I don’t like that this is possible and it’s worse that it often happens, but just because we don’t like the consequence of our having free-will dosn’t mean God is going to infringe upon it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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.

Do you mean this thread?

Yes. And the reason why you don’t want to get into the subject of Church Authority is precisely because that’s what all doctrines of Sola Scriptura eventually point toward– the authority of the church in question to clearly teach what the Scriptures actually mean.

If you’re still not willing to discuss Church Authority in relation to the various dogmatic claims of Sola Scriptura, then you’re still right where you started at-- having no effective definition of Sola Scriptura to begin with, and essentially teaching traditions which can’t even be solidly verified within the Scriptures your church claims to understand.

Syele:

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

I am allowing Atreyu to speak for himself.

But considering that you weren’t able to actually answer the questions I asked you before, nor even produce a solid definition of Sola Scriptura which you actually fully believed yourself, I think it’s far to continue to ask further questions to see if your doctrine if more fully developed yet.

Apparently, it’s not.

 

[Syele]

Do you mean this thread?

Yes. And the reason why you don’t want to get into the subject of Church Authority is precisely because that’s what all doctrines of Sola Scriptura eventually point toward– the authority of the church in question to clearly teach what the Scriptures actually mean.

Well the version of it that was lost. If you want to discuss Church Authority, why do you insist upon veiling it with a discussion on the Scriptures? You feel you have to take round about methods to trick people in to answering you? That is why Talitha accused you of Trolling (or whatever word she used at the time).

If you’re still not willing to discuss Church Authority in relation to the various dogmatic claims of Sola Scriptura, then you’re still right where you started at-- having no effective definition of Sola Scriptura to begin with, and essentially teaching traditions which can’t even be solidly verified within the Scriptures your church claims to understand.

An effective personal definition of Sola Scriptura? That makes no sense! Why don’t YOU have an effective personal definition of your belief in reincarnation after death? You do beilieve in death after all, therefore your sorry protest you don’t believe in reincarnation is ineffective! (this makes as much sense as you are making, BTW If I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, which you agreed with me before that I don’t, WHY would I bother to have a personal definition of it?)

I am allowing Atreyu to speak for himself.

But considering that you weren’t able to actually answer the questions I asked you before, nor even produce a solid definition of Sola Scriptura which you actually fully believed yourself, I think it’s far to continue to ask further questions to see if your doctrine if more fully developed yet.

Apparently, it’s not.

Alright then, Tell me YOUR definition of Sola Scriptura which you actually fully believe yourself.

 

[Atreyu]

The arguement is NOT about a disposal of tradition… it is simply against making tradition more authoritative than Scripture.

Well I’m not so sure about those assumptions, but I’m willing to let that be, for now. Now, the sentences I have quoted above are exactly the issue I have been trying to get at! My contention is that noone - not a single person on Earth - is able to make Scripture more authoritative than their own tradition. I think that when people make interpretations of Scripture, they unwillingly and unknowingly put their traditions above the authority of the Scriptures. An example of this is when (some) Protestants reject the authority of those set in place above them.

Therefore, sola scriptura does not exist.

 

[Syele]

Well I’m not so sure about those assumptions, but I’m willing to let that be, for now. Now, the sentences I have quoted above are exactly the issue I have been trying to get at! My contention is that noone - not a single person on Earth - is able to make Scripture more authoritative than their own tradition. I think that when people make interpretations of Scripture, they unwillingly and unknowingly put their traditions above the authority of the Scriptures. An example of this is when (some) Protestants reject the authority of those set in place above them.

Therefore, sola scriptura does not exist.

So you truly believe that The Holy Spirit is *incapable *of guiding people beyond their own personal traditions? Sorry, my God is more powerful than that.

 

[Syele]

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicacious) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.

Frankly I think that definition of Sola Scriptura stinks. wikipedia isn’t exactly a scholarly source either. It isn’t the origional, or even the most common. Can you state why you chose it?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well the version of it that was lost. If you want to discuss Church Authority, why do you insist upon veiling it with a discussion on the Scriptures?

Because it’s a fair question that demands an answer from those who uphold some form of Sola Scriptura.

I shared the very same questions that I began to ask myself beofre I left Lutheranism

And if asking people questions in order to get them thinking about their beleifs amounts to nothing more than trolling, then I hope you realize that you’re essentially accusing Jesus of trolling Israel.

Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked,

"You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?

Do you still not understand?

Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?

Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?

How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread?

But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Do you honestly think Jesus asked people questions because he didn’t know the answers?

No. He asked them questions so that he might engage their minds to think beyond the limits of what their minds were formerly willing to believe.

Syele:

You feel you have to take round about methods to trick people in to answering you? That is why Talitha accused you of Trolling (or whatever word she used at the time).

I think those are fairly strong words Syele.

Look, if you’re unwilling, unable of feel uncomfortable answering these questions, then I suggest you rethink your own reasons for entering this debate.

I did respect your wishes not to discuss Church authority in the first thread-- even though you often crossed the line and blended your own answers well into the territory of Church Authority within that very thread.

This time, I’m not stepping back.

So if you want to debate this question further, then I suggest you actually start to think a bit more about what you’re actually claiming when you state the Scriptures have the final authority-- or whatever definition you’re now using for Sola Scriptura.

I can’t actually tell what your definition is because you keep changing, altering and redacting them each time I ask you further questions regarding what you actually believe.

Syele:

An effective personal definition of Sola Scriptura? That makes no sense!

But if you don’t have an effective personal definition of Sola Scriptura, then why are you defending it?

That’s what doesn’t make sense.

Syele:

Why don’t YOU have an effective personal definition of your belief in reincarnation after death?

I’m not the one claming to beleive in Sola Scriptura.

You are. Therefore, it’s your responsibility to clearly present your thesis so that it can be exmained further.

Syele:

You do beilieve in death after all, therefore your sorry protest you don’t believe in reincarnation is ineffective! (this makes as much sense as you are making, BTW If I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, which you agreed with me before that I don’t, WHY would I bother to have a personal definition of it?)

Then why are you defending it?

Look, I’m not trying to give you a hard time. But we’re still right back where we started from Syele.

I’m not the one who’s claming to believe in some vague form of Sola Scriptura which evades definition in proportion to the questions that are asked regarding it.

You are.

Syele:

Alright then, Tell me YOUR definition of Sola Scriptura which you actually fully believe yourself.

It’s not my belief Syele.

You’re the one defending it. Not me.

What you’re doing is kind of like asking a creationist why they believe God used evolution to form Adam and Eve, or asking a Baptist why they believe it’s ok to baptise children, or asking the Pope why he believes all denominations have an equal teaching authority to the Catholic Church, or asking God why he is a sinner.

This is nonsense Syele. And at this point I have no idea what you are actually arguing for.

Nonetheless, these questions do inevitably point toward the authority of the church in question to clearly teach what the Scriptures actually mean.

And I am now asking you these questions and I expect some answers if you can provide them.

If you don’t actually believe in Sola Scriptura, and if you’re still not prepared to answer my questions which point toward the authority of the church in question to clearly teach what the Scriptures actually mean, then perhaps you should rethink the entire basis of why you are arguing with me.

Seriously.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

So you truly believe that The Holy Spirit is *incapable *of guiding people beyond their own personal traditions? Sorry, my God is more powerful than that.

He not saying that the Holy Spirit is incapable of guiding people beyond their own personal traditions.

He saying that the Holy Spirit has guided us to teach these traditions, and we would be guilty before God is we did not pass on these traditions that God gave to us as the Holy Spirit moved us to do so. And I agree with him 100% on this.

Furthermore, I’m not sure why you’re saying ‘my God’.

Your God is our God Syele.

“Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.

We’ve never said that you do not beleive in God. We know that you do agree with us on many matters, including Jesus’ divinity for example.

We’ve only said that you do not know the full extent to which God has reavealed himself to the world through us by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, to the extent that you are not against us, you are for us, and for the one who has sent us too-- Jesus.

More to the point, you worship what you do not fully know; we worship what we do fully know, for salvation is from Christ Jesus-- and we listen to him on all accounts that he has revealed to us: The Fullness of Truth.

I don’t think I can make the Catholic position any clearer for you at this point-- there really are truly Spirit led motions found evident within all authentic Trinitarian Christian churches.

What do you believe about Catholics?

 

[Syele]

Seriously, Mr. Ex Nihilo I entered this thread to ask that

1. People define better what the question is in these threads
   AND
2. people actually know what the 5 solas are and how they go together before trying to seperate them.

It is you who seem to claim I am defending Sola Scriptura. It is you who thinks I have changed my beliefs, when in fact I have not. You simply don’t seem to understand them well. There is a difference.

It’s not my belief Syele.

You’re the one defending it. Not me.

What you’re doing is kind of like asking a creationist why they believe God used evolution to form Adam and Eve, or asking a Baptist why they believe it’s ok to baptise children, or asking the Pope why he believes all denominations have an equal teaching authority to the Catholic Church, or asking God why he is a sinner.

This is nonsense Syele. And at this point I have no idea what you are actually arguing for.

Finally you get my point. I’M NOT DEFENDING IT! I’TS NOT MY BELIEF. Remember?!? YOU are the one who convinced me that what I believe is NOT Sola Scriptura. I’m arguing that people should KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE DEBATING.

I purposely stayed out of your thread because I was done discussing this with you because my answers to your questions are the same as last time. That shouldn’t mean I can’t talk with Atreyu about it.

For some reason you just drive me up the wall. I say something, you respond by telling me I don’t mean what I say, or you ignore what I say Or you say I said the opposite. I trully have no idea why we fail to communicate on such an extreme level, but since I can’t fix it… I’d rather we don’t chat.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Seriously, Mr. Ex Nihilo I entered this thread to ask that

1. People define better what the question is in these threads
   AND
2. people actually know what the 5 solas are and how they go together before trying to seperate them.

It is you who seem to claim I am defending Sola Scriptura. It is you who thinks I have changed my beliefs, when in fact I have not. You simply don’t seem to understand them well. There is a difference.

Finally you get my point. I’M NOT DEFENDING IT! I’TS NOT MY BELIEF. Remember?!? YOU are the one who convinced me that what I believe is NOT Sola Scriptura. I’m arguing that people should KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE DEBATING.

I purposely stayed out of your thread because I was done discussing this with you because my answers to your questions are the same as last time. That shouldn’t mean I can’t talk with Atreyu about it.

For some reason you just drive me up the wall. I say something, you respond by telling me I don’t mean what I say, or you ignore what I say Or you say I said the opposite. I trully have no idea why we fail to communicate on such an extreme level, but since I can’t fix it… I’d rather we don’t chat.

See you at the RCIA class.

 

[Atreyu]

So you truly believe that The Holy Spirit is *incapable *of guiding people beyond their own personal traditions? Sorry, my God is more powerful than that.

No, I don’t think God is incapable of anything. Maybe some of my posts have been a bit confused. We should not be concerned with what God can or cannot do, as He can do anything that is possible. Rather, we should be concerned with what God does. I don’t think sola scriptura exists, because I don’t think God inspires anybody in such a way that sola scriptura could work. Do I believe that God inspires some people to understand the true interpretation of the Bible? Of course, I think God inspires the Catholic Church to understand the true interpretation of the Bible. But even if this were the case, then sola scriptura still doesn’t exist, as in the case of the Catholic Church, Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition.

Frankly I think that definition of Sola Scriptura stinks. wikipedia isn’t exactly a scholarly source either. It isn’t the origional, or even the most common. Can you state why you chose it?

Because I was hoping that it would be the least controversial. I don’t know what the original or the most common definition of sola scriptura is, and I thought this one would do as good as any other. Besides, I don’t think my arguments - in particular the argument as I outlined in my last post - are influenced much by the exact definition of sola scriptura that you take.

 

[Verita]

So you truly believe that The Holy Spirit is *incapable *of guiding people beyond their own personal traditions? Sorry, my God is more powerful than that.

This is just silly. Obviously God could do anything. However, He just doesn’t. He choose to limit himself when He gave us free will. That means while God could force us all the understand the Bible the way it is supposed to be understood, He doesn’t because He has chosen to let us decide for ourselves what we want to believe. And if He did guide people in the way many protestants seem to think he does, then everyone would have the same interpretation because there is only one Truth. This is obviously not the case so we much conclude that either the Spirit is guiding everyone and just doing a lousy job, or He isn’t guiding everyone. And since nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that the Spirit will guide everyone (Jesus clearly promises guidance only to the Apostles), I think it’s easy to see what the reality is.

 

[Sixtus]

Doctrine from Scripture?

In fact all Catholic teaching is from Scripture. The Churches laws etc are all taken from the canon. This implies the canonical gospels

 

[jmcrae]

Doctrine from Scripture?

In fact all Catholic teaching is from Scripture. The Churches laws etc are all taken from the canon. This implies the canonical gospels

Other way around - all Scripture comes from the oral Holy Tradition, and is a subset thereof.

We have many canons - the canon of Scripture, canon law, the canon of the Saints - “canon” is simply a word signifying an official or definitive list.

 

[Syele]

See you at the RCIA class.

LOL My belief on this didn’t change, and not believing in the definition of SOla Scriptura that you have hardly makes me near being Catholic.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

LOL My belief on this didn’t change, and not believing in the definition of SOla Scriptura that you have hardly makes me near being Catholic.

But I don’t have a defintion of Sola Scriptura that doesn’t involve Sacred Tradition. To me, Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition-- and I don’t have a problem with Sacred Traditions.

I do, however, have a problem with those who would do theological backflips in order to avoid calling their own beliefs a Sacred Tradition.

It backfires everytime.

And in regards to the RCIA, I know, I know…

Although I do hope and pray that you would someday become Catholic, I’m am, after all, just teasing you a we bit too Syele.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

Yes. And, if I recall correctly, you yourself admitted that there were even some things within this definition that you didn’t actually agree with…

Now let’s go through this with a fine toothed comb, shall we?

Syele:

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

So do you actually agree with this defintion, or is this definition likewise subject to revision upon further inquiry?

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.

This part right here knocks the Sola from the Scriptura.

Unless you’re talking about a leguminous plant growing in moist places in Southern India and the East Indies, this leaves us with…

Sola \So"la, a. [L., fem. of solus.]
See Solus.

Solus \So"lus, masc. a., Sola \So"la, fem. a.[L.]
Alone; – chiefly used in stage directions, and the like.

Sola means alone, so if someone is not talking about the Scriptures alone, then they are not talking about Sola Scriptura.

Godfrey:

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.

I don’t see any reference to the Holy Spirit here.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit enables people to understand the Scriptures, or do you beleive that the Scriptures can be understood without the Spirit’s motion?
Godfey:

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.”

But the Scriptures contradict this bold assertion.

I’ve already covered this before too.

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.

Godfrey:

The Protestant position, and my position, is…

…wrong.

Godfrey:

…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.

So then, using only the Scriptures, you should be able to answer if 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?

 

[Atreyu]

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.

What happens if you are illiterate, or literate but stupid?

 

[simbagizmo]

But I don’t have a defintion of Sola Scriptura that doesn’t involve Sacred Tradition. To me, Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition-- and I don’t have a problem with Sacred Traditions.

I do, however, have a problem with those who would do theological backflips in order to avoid calling their own beliefs a Sacred Tradition.

It backfires everytime.

And in regards to the RCIA, I know, I know…

Although I do hope and pray that you would someday become Catholic, I’m am, after all, just teasing you a we bit too Syele.

Sorry to jump in here, but you stated that Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition. Please define Sacred Tradition?

So then, using only the Scriptures, you should be able to answer if you think it’s ok to sell yourself into slavery?

When you talk about selling yourself to slavery, are you talking about being paid to do what the payer says?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Sorry to jump in here, but you stated that Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition. Please define Sacred Tradition?

Sure thing.

Sacred Tradition incorpororates the entire body of teaching, written and oral as collected by those of authority who have a God given authority to teach, teachings which were transmitted from the earliest apostolic days and continue to bind the conscience to this day.

There’s nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that this will be lost. And there’s plenty more in the Scriptures to indicate this God given teaching authority is necessary for a clear understanding of God’s will (and will continue by the Holy Spirit) than anything I’ve seen presented to indicate that the Scriptures alone contain the fullness of God’s revelation.

The Scriptures alone without a solid teaching authority as governed by the Holy Spirit are like a lightbulb without electricity-- potentially usefull, but not really effective until used properly.

simbagizmo:

When you talk about selling yourself to slavery, are you talking about being paid to do what the payer says?

No. That’s called work-- and there’s nothing wrong with working for your food. The apostle himself says that if we do not work we will not eat.

What I’m talking about is Paul’s instructions to have Onesimus, a slave, return to his master. Paul never explicitly condemns this kind of of slavery. Or, if he does, it’s never explicitly stated as such in the Scriptures.

In fact, contrary to this, although he encourages his master to treat him as a dear brother, Paul encourages Onesimus to nonetheless return regardless of how his master actually decides to treats him.

So if this kind of slavery can be condemned, how is it done using the Scriptures when Paul, an apostle of Christ, actually counters this modern position we uphold as vituous today?

The Scriptures do not have a clear answer on this question-- especially the Hebrew Scriptures.