Does Sola Scriptura need to state as such?

[Sonny69]

[But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.[/COLOR]

Hi Randy Carson,

Where do your doctrines of a church being built on Peter, Mary not having children, Mary as being a perpetual virgin, the Catholic priesthood etc; where do these “traditions” come from?

The three-legged stool that is the firmest is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The bride of Christ has not yet been revealed and also man-made traditions can be good if it does not not nullify the word of God; however the Jews got in plenty of eternal trouble because their traditions did nullify the word of God and Jesus wasn’t too happy about that and not only cursed them, but said they actually prevented people from entering the Kingdom…so one must be careful about the use of man-made traditions and there must be something that stands as the authority to measure such traditions and that authority is the word of God.

Have you ever read 1John 2:20-21? Whom is the “annointing” and what does He teach to the Christian or shall I say allow the Christian, which are very few in number compared to those who call themselves Christian, (a real problem) tell the difference concerning the truth of God.

Without that annointing; no one can understand the word of God anymore than the demons as James tells us; it is only useless head knowledge.

God bless you. S69

 

[JugglingReferee]

Wow! Wonderful info here. Thanks everyone.

I am expecting an upcoming discussion on SS with some non-denom friends.

 

[EricFilmer]

Wow! Wonderful info here. Thanks everyone.

I am expecting an upcoming discussion on SS with some non-denom friends.

Feel free to bring up these points as well:

1) Sola Scriptura is not actually taught in Scripture, and it could easily have been, considering all the time, people and text that went into compiling the Bible. If God wanted us to follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, why not simply have ONE prophet devote ONE line of Scripture to state something like, “Scripture alone is to be the basis of formulating doctrine”? There are thousands and thousands of verses in the Bible. If only ONE of them contained such a statement then all Christians would be adherents of Sola Scriptura.

2) Sola Scriptura is a teaching that tells us to use Scripture alone when formulating doctrine. But Scripture alone cannot be used to validate Sola Scriptura. In other words, in order to demonstrate why Sola Scriptura is true, one has to make arguments outside of Scripture. This means that the proposal violates the Law of Non-contradiction, because Sola Scriptura fails its own test (i.e., it is a teaching outside of Scripture that says to reject teachings outside of Scripture).

3) Sola Scriptura is not self-evident. Approximately 4000 years have passed since God established the covenant with Abraham. And yet the Jews have never gleaned Sola Scriptura from Scripture, nor taught it. The closest thing we see in Judaism were the Sadducees who taught “Torah Only” (but they did not get this rule from Scripture itself, and their stance on “Torah Only” led them to disbelieving in a resurrection and afterlife for humans; Jesus corrected them and thereby demonstrated disapproval of their “Torah Only” principle).

Moreover, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have been around for approximately 2000 years, and yet neither the Catholic Church nor any of the various Orthodox Christian Churches have ever taught Sola Scriptura. In light of all this, literally billions of Scripture-using people have been around for 4000 years who never believed in nor taught Sola Scriptura, nor saw evidence of it in the Bible. Moreover, many adherents of Sola Scriptura disagree over the definition and application of Sola Scriptura, making it questionable as to exactly how self-evident it is even to them.

4) Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium, and yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept what books belong in the Bible (i.e., the Canons of the Old and New Testament). For example, many ancient Christians thought that the Letter of Barnabas and the Books of Enoch were divinely inspired. And yet no Christian Bible today contains them. Who told us that these books were not truly divinely inspired? God did. And how did God tell us? Through the Magisterium. So in order to be a practitioner of Sola Scriptura, one first has to ask what is and is not truly Scripture to begin with. To answer that question, Christians have relied upon what was determined by the Magisterium. But if one rejects that the Magisterium has the God-given authority to do such things, why believe in the Canons of the Old and New Testaments formulated by the Magisterium? The question remains, “What exactly are the Scriptures that are alone supposed to be used in order to practice Sola Scriptura?” (As a side note, I know that Protestants and Catholics disagree over the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament, so I am simply speaking in general terms here).

5) We have no original manuscript of any book in the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies, and so forth. Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium, and yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept that the ancient biblical manuscripts truly represent what was originally written. For example, how do I know that the Gospel of Luke in my Bible is a true representation of what Luke actually wrote, seeing as his original version has been lost since the time of the ancient Church? God verifies that it is. And how did God verify it? Through the Magisterium.

6) Sola Scriptura has not proven useful in resolving doctrinal disputes among Protestants over such topics as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, women pastors, the necessity of water Baptism, homosexual marriage, divorce, abortion, what is and is not a sacrament, etc. These are not small issues, and many people come up with contradictory statements about them, with each side citing that their position was derived from Sola Scriptura.

 

[RSD]

One day I had to leave home suddenly. I left a note for my children when they came home, telling them what to do about dinner. When I got home, I found one child sitting at the dinner table, properly set, waiting for me to come home. The rest were arguing about what the note meant. In the note, I said: “The soup is ready. Just heat it up, and add seasonings.”

The arguments went something like this:
) Mom only said to heat up the soup, so that is all we should do.

1. No, she always says to set the table properly before we eat, so we should set the table properly.
2. But the note says “JUST heat it up”.
3. But she always says to set the table.
4. But in the note it doesn’t say to set the table.
5. We could have some of the bread she made. It is sitting right here ready to eat.
6. No, the note says “JUST” heat up the soup.
7. No, it says to add seasonings
8. ACK, you should not be the one to add the seasonings. You always put in too much salt and pepper. Someone who knows what most people like should add the seasonings.
9. There is no such thing as too much salt and pepper.

I won’t bore you with the rest of the arguments. I actually did want the table set, I did want everybody sitting together to have the nice dinner I made, I did want the bread to be served, and sliced and buttered, that was why I left the bread and butter there, and the cutting board and the knife. I did want the soup to be seasoned by someone who would have consideration for other people’s tastes.

Oops, I just remembered this is a thread about scripture. I am sorry I stuck in this note from my cooking blog.

 

[Sonny69]

Feel free to bring up these points as well:

1) Sola Scriptura is not actually taught in Scripture, and it could easily have been, considering all the time, people and text that went into compiling the Bible. If God wanted us to follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, why not simply have ONE prophet devote ONE line of Scripture to state something like, “Scripture alone is to be the basis of formulating doctrine”? There are thousands and thousands of verses in the Bible. If only ONE of them contained such a statement then all Christians would be adherents of Sola Scriptura.

2) Sola Scriptura is a teaching that tells us to use Scripture alone when formulating doctrine. But Scripture alone cannot be used to validate Sola Scriptura. In other words, in order to demonstrate why Sola Scriptura is true, one has to make arguments outside of Scripture. This means that the proposal violates the Law of Non-contradiction, because Sola Scriptura fails its own test (i.e., it is a teaching outside of Scripture that says to reject teachings outside of Scripture).

3) Sola Scriptura is not self-evident. Approximately 4000 years have passed since God established the covenant with Abraham. And yet the Jews have never gleaned Sola Scriptura from Scripture, nor taught it. The closest thing we see in Judaism were the Sadducees who taught “Torah Only” (but they did not get this rule from Scripture itself, and their stance on “Torah Only” led them to disbelieving in a resurrection and afterlife for humans; Jesus corrected them and thereby demonstrated disapproval of their “Torah Only” principle).

Moreover, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have been around for approximately 2000 years, and yet neither the Catholic Church nor any of the various Orthodox Christian Churches have ever taught Sola Scriptura. In light of all this, literally billions of Scripture-using people have been around for 4000 years who never believed in nor taught Sola Scriptura, nor saw evidence of it in the Bible. Moreover, many adherents of Sola Scriptura disagree over the definition and application of Sola Scriptura, making it questionable as to exactly how self-evident it is even to them.

4) Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium, and yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept what books belong in the Bible (i.e., the Canons of the Old and New Testament). For example, many ancient Christians thought that the Letter of Barnabas and the Books of Enoch were divinely inspired. And yet no Christian Bible today contains them. Who told us that these books were not truly divinely inspired? God did. And how did God tell us? Through the Magisterium. So in order to be a practitioner of Sola Scriptura, one first has to ask what is and is not truly Scripture to begin with. To answer that question, Christians have relied upon what was determined by the Magisterium. But if one rejects that the Magisterium has the God-given authority to do such things, why believe in the Canons of the Old and New Testaments formulated by the Magisterium? The question remains, “What exactly are the Scriptures that are alone supposed to be used in order to practice Sola Scriptura?” (As a side note, I know that Protestants and Catholics disagree over the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament, so I am simply speaking in general terms here).

5) We have no original manuscript of any book in the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies, and so forth. Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium, and yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept that the ancient biblical manuscripts truly represent what was originally written. For example, how do I know that the Gospel of Luke in my Bible is a true representation of what Luke actually wrote, seeing as his original version has been lost since the time of the ancient Church? God verifies that it is. And how did God verify it? Through the Magisterium.

6) Sola Scriptura has not proven useful in resolving doctrinal disputes among Protestants over such topics as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, women pastors, the necessity of water Baptism, homosexual marriage, divorce, abortion, what is and is not a sacrament, etc. These are not small issues, and many people come up with contradictory statements about them, with each side citing that their position was derived from Sola Scriptura.

Hi Eric Filmer,

One issue with all that; what is the reference for such assertions. What did the NT writers, Jesus, all the ecf’s use to defend their doctrines and traditions? Scripture. So although the term Sola Scriptura came along later it has always been in practice and will as long as the word of God stands, which according to the word of God and from Jesus Himself is forever.

We could say the same thing about the term “Trinity”; never found explicitly; but strongly implicit, but never put into a term we can relate to, which is “Trinity” until much later and can be validated by what authority? Scripture. Sola’s are likewise the same.

God bless you. S69

 

[Ignatius]

For sola scriptura to be valid, does the Bible need to say that only the Bible should be used?

Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) says that only the Bible can be used to prove Truth; therefore, if it is True, it must be in the Bible Alone.

 

[Sonny69]

Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) says that only the Bible can be used to prove Truth; therefore, if it is True, it must be in the Bible Alone.

Hi Ignatius,
You know better than that; you know that is not what Sola Scriptura is. Seems like before the discussion began that perhaps everyone should have decided to first agreee on what Sola Scriptura is and whayt it is not. Just a novel idea since it appears to be defined in numerous ways. There is a man who is a Protestant teacher…aahhh just popped into my brain - R.C. Sproul. I would go and look what he says it is and isn’t; he is much into history of church and reformation and I believe a former Catholic as well.

God bless you. S69

 

[Ignatius]

Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) says that only Bible Sole authority for a teaching; therefore, if it is True, it must be in the Bible Alone.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;7405595:

Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) says that the Bible is the sole authority to prove a teaching; therefore, if it is True, it must be in the Bible Alone.

Hi Ignatius,
You know better than that; you know that is not what Sola Scriptura is.

No, that is exactly what Sola Scriptura is according to authoritative Protestant teaching.

. . .it appears to be defined in numerous ways.
R.C. Sproul. I would go and look what he says it is and isn’t;

R.C. Sproul is not the final authority on what Sola Scriptura or any other Protestant Doctrine is. I’m sure that you know that Martin Luther himself said, if you couldn’t show him something in the Bible Alone, he wouldl not believe it. That’s pretty clear. Until you can tell me what the actual defnintion agreed to by all Protestants is, I’ll use the Protestant defnintion that most closely aligns with what the words mean: i.e. Bible Alone.

Otherwise, when the arguments against it get too overwelming, they will simply change the definition to get around those arguments. This will lead to the situation in which there is actually no authoritative Protestant definition. Or, to paraphrase the lament of Luther less than a decade after he started his reformation : there are nearly as many opinions as there are heads.

 

[Ignatius]

No, that is exactly what Sola Scriptura is according to authoritative Protestant teaching.

R.C. Sproul is not the final authority on what Sola Scriptura or any other Protestant Doctrine is. I’m sure that you know that Martin Luther himself said, if you couldn’t show him something in the Bible Alone, he wouldl not believe it. That’s pretty clear. Until you can tell me what the actual defnintion agreed to by all Protestants is, I’ll use the Protestant defnintion that most closely aligns with what the words mean: i.e. Bible Alone.

Otherwise, when the arguments against it get too overwelming, they will simply change the definition to get around those arguments. This will lead to the situation in which there is actually no authoritative Protestant definition. Or, to paraphrase the lament of Luther less than a decade after he started his reformation : there are nearly as many opinions as there are heads.

Here are a couple of Protestant sources for a definition of Sola Scriptura:
This Protestant doctrine says that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice.(presumably including the doctrine of Sola Scriptura) - bible.ca/sola-scriptura-start.htm. (italics mine)

D. 4. Sola Scriptura means just what it says: the bible alone! - bible.ca/sola-scriptura-start.htm. Look at D4 for the definition.

Sola Scriptura (Lat., ‘by scripture alone’). The belief that the truths of Christian faith and practice can and must be established from scripture alone (again, the belief and practice of Sola Scriptura must be included ) - encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-SolaScriptura.html

 

[JM3]

One day I had to leave home suddenly. I left a note for my children when they came home, telling them what to do about dinner. When I got home, I found one child sitting at the dinner table, properly set, waiting for me to come home. The rest were arguing about what the note meant. In the note, I said: “The soup is ready. Just heat it up, and add seasonings.”

The arguments went something like this:
) Mom only said to heat up the soup, so that is all we should do.

1. No, she always says to set the table properly before we eat, so we should set the table properly.
2. But the note says “JUST heat it up”.
3. But she always says to set the table.
4. But in the note it doesn’t say to set the table.
5. We could have some of the bread she made. It is sitting right here ready to eat.
6. No, the note says “JUST” heat up the soup.
7. No, it says to add seasonings
8. ACK, you should not be the one to add the seasonings. You always put in too much salt and pepper. Someone who knows what most people like should add the seasonings.
9. There is no such thing as too much salt and pepper.

I won’t bore you with the rest of the arguments. I actually did want the table set, I did want everybody sitting together to have the nice dinner I made, I did want the bread to be served, and sliced and buttered, that was why I left the bread and butter there, and the cutting board and the knife. I did want the soup to be seasoned by someone who would have consideration for other people’s tastes.

Oops, I just remembered this is a thread about scripture. I am sorry I stuck in this note from my cooking blog.

:yup: :clapping:

 

[EricFilmer]

Hi Eric Filmer,

Greetings.

One issue with all that; what is the reference for such assertions.

Here are the references, in order, to my points from Post #23:

Point #1) The reference is the Bible itself. Sola Scriptura is not found therein.

Point #2) The reference is the Law of Non-contradiction. A proposal which inherently contradicts itself must be discarded as false.

Point #3) The reference is the official teachings of Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. Sola Scriptura does not appear in any catechism (or equivalent) of these faiths. Furthermore, an internet search of the term Sola Scriptura demonstrates that Protestants differ in how to define it and use it when formulating doctrine.

Point #4) Consider what I posted in light of this material I presented in a similar thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7310282&postcount=115
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7310288&postcount=116
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7310292&postcount=117
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7310314&postcount=118

Point #5) This stems from the fact that no original copy of any book or letter of the Bible has been found since the times of antiquity. This is basically a known fact.

Point #6) The fact that there is wide discrepancy among Sola Scriptura using Protestants concerning such topics as Real Presence in the Eucharist, women pastors, the necessity of water Baptism, homosexual marriage, divorce, abortion, what is and is not a sacrament, etc. is pretty well known. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention does not allow women pastors, but non-denominational churches do. The Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists believe in the Real Presence in terms of their Communion, but other Protestants don’t. Here is a link to a debate between Protestants about the necessity of Baptism:
youtube.com/watch?v=U56SIZL_URc

What did the NT writers, Jesus, all the ecf’s use to defend their doctrines and traditions? Scripture.

They used Scripture and Tradition. Plus, if I ask someone, “What exactly is Scripture?” no one can use Scripture Alone to answer the question. One has to go outside of Scripture in order to answer that question, and if the canon of Scripture is doctrinal, then there has to be some sort of authority outside of Scripture to make an official declaration as to what the canon of Scripture is.

So although the term Sola Scriptura came along later it has always been in practice…

If it has “always been in practice” then show me exactly where this practice was taught…

1. Among the Jews
2. Among the Catholics
3. Among the Orthodox Churches
4. Among the Early Church Fathers
5. In the Bible

Notice, I am not specifically asking you to cite early people using the term Sola Scriptura, but people who teach the principle of it (and who likewise reject the use of Tradition for the formulation of doctrine, and the authority of the Magisterium to officially define doctrine).

…and will as long as the word of God stands, which according to the word of God and from Jesus Himself is forever.

The idea that “Word of God” specifically means Scripture is a Protestant notion. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, who is the head of the Church, as well as God’s revelation which comes from both Scripture and Tradition.

We could say the same thing about the term “Trinity”; never found explicitly; but strongly implicit, but never put into a term we can relate to, which is “Trinity” until much later and can be validated by what authority? Scripture. Sola’s are likewise the same.

If you think that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is “strongly implicit” in Scripture and can be validated by Scripture then try posting that on a Seventh Day Adventist forum or a Jehovah’s Witnesses forum and see how that pans out. They reject the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity because, in their view, it is unbiblical. For example, I have been in a number of debates with SDAs who ask over and over, “Show me in the Bible where it says the Holy Spirit is a divine person distinct from the Father.”

Furthermore, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not validated by the authority of Scripture, but rather stems from Tradition and has been officially defined by the Magisterium (in terms of the early Creeds).

God bless you. S69

Thanks, and may God bless you as well.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Hi Randy Carson,

Where do your doctrines of a church being built on Peter, Mary not having children, Mary as being a perpetual virgin, the Catholic priesthood etc; where do these “traditions” come from?

I can’t and won’t speak for Mr. Carson, but my belief in those doctrines is found in the bible.

Church built on Peter: Matthew 16: 16-119
Mary not having Children "How can this be since I know not man, she was MARRIED and still a virgin before Jesus…Luke 1:34
Catholic Priesthood, just a sampling of verses
Genesis 14:18
Psalms 109:4
Hebrews— well pretty much the whole book.

 

[kepha1]

The Acts of the Apostles is the second half of a 2 part work which began with St. Luke’s Gospel. It chronicles the activities in the Church centered on Jerusalem from the time of Christ’s ascension until St. Paul was arrested and deported to Rome for his appeal to the Emperor (~62 AD). No mention is made that either St. Paul or St. Peter had been executed so the book must have been written before 67 AD.

Please note that during this time St. Luke’s Gospel had been written and at least one other Synoptic Gospel (IMHO Matthew was first) if not both. Also the Major Epistles of St. Paul (Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, Romans) as well as the earliest Epistles (1&2 Thessalonians) were also written during this period.

THERE IS NOT ONE WORD IN ACTS ABOUT ANY GOSPELS OR EPISTLES BEING WRITTEN! THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A "NEW TESTAMENT’ EVEN IN NASCENT FORM!

If the Bible was so important that it was to be the "sole rule of faith’ for the Church why did the author of Acts not mention ANYTHING about the NT writings which we KNOW must have been written and preserved during that time?

And if that is the case, when did the NT writings become so important? IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT THE CASE DURING APOSTOLIC TIMES!

Could it be that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is what really made the Bible what it is today? Could it be that advocating the NT for Christians is part of Sacred Tradition for which there is no biblical warrant?

Honoring the writings of the Apostles as Saced Scripture on par with the Jewish Sacred Writings was an act of the Magisterium sometime in the late 1st or early 2nd Century. There is no evidence in Acts that anyone even CARED about any of the writings that had been generated except as historical sources. There is no support in Acts for SS and that is a glaring omission.

This does not denigrate the importance of Scripture. Rather it shows that the Protestant view of Scripture is neither historical nor BIBLICAL.

by Art Sippo

 

[Cinette]

2 Tim 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSV). It’s clear that the Scriptures are a dependable and infallible rule of faith (as God Himself has inspired it). Where is the trustworthy statement that****** anything else is equal to Scripture? If nothing else is equal to or greater than Scripture, then Sola Scriptura must be true!

Just a quick response in case anyone wants to refer to 2 Thes 2:15 (“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” RSV), this is reffering to traditions, but notice, It is the SAME traditions that kw

1. 
   
   I find it curious that you identify yourself as a former Roman Catholic instead of "former Roman Catholic converted to…
   
   Cinette

 

[JRKH]

No, that is exactly what Sola Scriptura is according to authoritative Protestant teaching.

R.C. Sproul is not the final authority on what Sola Scriptura or any other Protestant Doctrine is. I’m sure that you know that Martin Luther himself said, if you couldn’t show him something in the Bible Alone, he wouldl not believe it. That’s pretty clear. Until you can tell me what the actual defnintion agreed to by all Protestants is, I’ll use the Protestant defnintion that most closely aligns with what the words mean: i.e. Bible Alone.

Otherwise, when the arguments against it get too overwelming, they will simply change the definition to get around those arguments. This will lead to the situation in which there is actually no authoritative Protestant definition. Or, to paraphrase the lament of Luther less than a decade after he started his reformation : there are nearly as many opinions as there are heads.

This is a great answer and precisely true. I have seen protestants here offer different meanings for SS. It is all part of that rejection of an authoritative Church and the result is that nobody knows for sure what something means because each person can make up their own meaning…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi Randy Carson,

Where do your doctrines of a church being built on Peter, Mary not having children, Mary as being a perpetual virgin, the Catholic priesthood etc; where do these “traditions” come from?

Since Randy seems to be delayed in responding I will attempt, in my humble way, to address some of these issues.
Rather than try to answer each of these above, I suggest you look HERE for both Scriptural and ECF evidence for the beliefs. Secondly, I suggest looking at **the Catechism **for further clarification and source documents.

The three-legged stool that is the firmest is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Indeed it is a firm stool, but the question a SS protestant must ask is, when different individuals come to different, and opposing, doctrines and both claim the bible and the Holy Spirit as their evidence and witness, how can the SS protestant community as a whole determine which is truly the Will of the Holy Spirit and which is from another spirit?

The bride of Christ has not yet been revealed and also man-made traditions can be good if it does not not nullify the word of God; however the Jews got in plenty of eternal trouble because their traditions did nullify the word of God and Jesus wasn’t too happy about that and not only cursed them, but said they actually prevented people from entering the Kingdom…so one must be careful about the use of man-made traditions and there must be something that stands as the authority to measure such traditions and that authority is the word of God.

You are quite correct, Christ was very unhappy with the teachers of the Law and even warned that one should not seek to be a teacher since more is required of such a one. Yet look at what jesus told the Jews and the disciples about obedience to those in authority over them.
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt 23:1-3)
Here Jesus specifically seperates teaching from example. He tells the dicsiples to follow the teachings (even the “man made traditions”) but to ignore the example set by the teachers.
Note here what Jesus does NOT say. He dose not tell the people to check and see it the instructions “nullify the word of God”…He does NOT say obey only if you agree with them…He instruct obedience for the “common man” or what we would refer to as the “man in the pew”. And He gave this instruction after having denounced the Scribes and Pharisees for what they had been teaching…

Have you ever read 1John 2:20-21? Whom is the “annointing” and what does He teach to the Christian or shall I say allow the Christian, which are very few in number compared to those who call themselves Christian, (a real problem) tell the difference concerning the truth of God.

Without that annointing; no one can understand the word of God anymore than the demons as James tells us; it is only useless head knowledge.

God bless you. S69

And so we return to the question of determining who is truly annointed and who is not. Who truly understands and who does not?
You ask this question when you say “who is the annointing” and admit they are few in number compared to the total number of those who call themselves Christians.
Yet from a strictly protestant Sola Scriptura standpoint there is no answer, for two completely sincere Christians can (and have) reached opposing doctrines using the bible alone and the SS proestant has no way to determine, for the universal Christian community, which of the opposing views is correct and which is not.

Now from a Catholic Sola Scripture viewpoint, there is an answer because the solution is given in the pages of Scripture itself…Only the protestant Sola Scripturist cannot see it. He sees the words but does not comprehend.

Peace
James

 

[Cachonga]

It seems to me that when the term “Sola Scriptura” is used, most people think only of the New Testament. Didn’t Jesus quote Scripture? Didn’t the Apostles teach from Scripture? Didn’t Paul use Scripture in his teachings? Keep in mind, the Bereans “searched the scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11). Even Jesus urged the hypocrites of His day to “search the scriptures” (John 5:39). Timothy certainly learned the Scriptures as he was growing up. Obviously, this is not referring to the New Testament Scriptures! Does this mean the New Testament is unnecessary? By no means! Even going to 2 Tim 3:14-17, and using Randy Carson’s “interpretation”, there is still the problem of 2 Thes 2:15 (the traditions Paul taught could be learned orally from him, OR by reading his letters).

I did notice that nobody answered my question – Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? If “Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium” is supposed to be an answer, please provide the trustworthy source for this assertion. I would consider Jesus, the Apostles, or Scripture to be a trustworthy source (I do not accept “because the Church says so” as a trustworthy answer).

I won’t even comment on Dave Armstrong’s 10 steps (comparing the US Constitution with the Holy Scriptures! Talk about comparing apples & oranges!).

According to beth40n2, the Bible was canonized in the 4th century (I’m guessing the reference are the councils of Hippo and Carthage, which were provincial councils. Since when does a provincial council “speak” for the entire Church? Also, how did they define the dueterocanonical books?). Why did the Church wait until the council of Trent to declare the dueterocanonical books as “God-breathed”? Also, Peter refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). If the Apostle Peter recognizes Paul’s writings as Scripture, wouldn’t that be part of the tradition of the Church? Wouldn’t those writings be copied and passed on so other Churches could have access to those Scriptures? In fact, that is exactly what happened! And, believe it or not, nobody waited until the 4th century to start making copies!

melchesidechpio and ProVobis seem to have a problem with translation and/or textual variants. God inspired the original autographs, not the copies or translations (which would include the Latin Vulgate). This is why we should learn Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Since that is a long and difficult process, we have other helps available for studying the Scriptures from their original languages. They seem to be missing the point – we all agree (for the most part, I’m sure) that Scripture is a rule of faith. The Scripture testifies that it is “God-breathed”. Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else (like Tradition) is equal to Scripture? (BTW – to answer melchesidechpio’s question about the KJV, I would recommend you visit vintage.aomin.org/kjvo.html and examine the articles found there).

JRKH has pointed out that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church to teach Scripture. Anyone who thinks that it’s just him, his Bible and Jesus doesn’t understand Sola Scriptura. However, that does not mean that the congregation has to just accept whatever the pastor tells them. They have the right (and responsibility) to check what they are being taught against Scriptures to be sure heresies don’t creep in (again, look at the Bereans and how they searched the Scriptures daily to verify what Paul was teaching).

To answer JM3’s question, I would point out that God does not contradict Himself, so He is in full agreement with what He has inspired in the Scriptures. I would them point to Psalms 138:2 (“I will worship toward thy holy temple, And give thanks unto thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” ASV).

As far as John 21:25 goes, I fail to see how this is relevant to Sola Scriptura. Just because Jesus said and did more than we have recorded, doesn’t mean the Scriptures are lacking anything that we need (or do you think God was mistaken when he inspired Paul to write 2 Tim 3:14-17?). I would suggest that any biography you read, no matter how exhaustive, does not cover everything that person said or did. The thing to remember is that what was recorded is what’s important. However, if you want to make an argument from John 21:25, please give us a single word, phrase or act performed by Jesus that we do not have recorded in Scripture (be prepared to prove the accuracy of your claim). If you cannot produce such a word, phrase or act, then how is this a relevant argument against Sola Scriptura?

I would like to thank JRKH for correcting me on the point of “infallible” vs “inerrant”. As far as my use of “and” in place of “or”, first of all, I was not quoting the Scriptures, but making a point about the traditions Paul had taught. What did Paul teach? Traditions. How did he teach them? Orally and by letter. How could a person learn these traditions? Orally (directly from Paul), or by reading what he had written. Since we no longer have Paul around to teach us directly, we can still learn the traditions he taught by reading his letters. The idea that if Paul had not been delayed would have changed what was actually written is a moot point since he was delayed and we have what we have (and it is God-breathed). Perhaps if I had used “were” instead of “are” in the sentence, that may have reduced the confusion. Sorry about that!

<continued…>

 

[Cachonga]

<continued…>

I am curious, does EricFilmer realize that he has proven my point with his post (#20)? Where did EricFilmer get the information about “refraining from what is ignoble”? Didn’t that come from the Scriptures? The same source that Paul said was “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Cor 9 is a lesson in sowing and reaping, and how God provides seed to the sower (read the entire chapter, and try reading it in different versions to see how else it’s translated).

I notice kepha1 has posted something (it seems) by Art Sippo in regard to the book of Acts. I would simply ask – what was the subject of the book of Acts? This was a continuation of the Gospel of Luke, but (as I understand it) was also used as a court document in Paul’s defense at Rome (which is why it ends with Paul in Rome). Since Paul is not accused of adding to the Scriptures, why would his writings even be mentioned (let alone the writings of others)? As far as the apostles writing Scripture, Peter makes it clear in 2 Peter 3:14-15 that Paul’s writings were considered Scripture (wouldn’t Peter’s endorsement be considered an “apostolic tradition”?).

While Cinette’s question is off-topic, I will quickly state that I am a former Roman Catholic, and (thanks in large part to my brother and Tim Staples) am now a Reformed Baptist. BTW - the brother I am referring to is staunchly Roman Catholic and is constantly trying to bring me back to Rome.

 

[porthos11]

For sola scriptura to be valid, does the Bible need to say that only the Bible should be used?

That is, what common sense argument(s) are used to justify SS without requiring that the Bible state as much?

There really isn’t any. For anyone to justify Sola Scriptura, he must presuppose that the 66 (his canon) books of the Bible are the inspired Word of God. That is itself not in any of the 66 books, therefore, the presumption that the 66 books are inspired is itself a Tradition (a correct one, and one which Protestants use all the time). This in itself is contrary to Sola Scriptura (it’s no longer sola).

And in any case, even if one of the 66 books did list the inspired books, even the inspiration of that list must be established first.

Proving the inspiration of the Bible from the Bible is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.

Catholics when arguing Sola Scriptura should not push any point (i.e. “Sola Scriptura is false”; the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion) and not even concede that the Bible is inspired. The inspiration of the Bible is the first premise that must be proven, and since this is a point of dogma, must be proven using the Bible alone (which cannot be done without circular reasoning).