I really don't get "Sola Scriptura"?

[Maccabees]

Footnotes from Westminster Confession:

[1] Romans 2:14-15. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. Romans 1:19-20. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Psalm 19:1-3. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Romans 1:32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Nowhere in these references is a denial of the Church’s Authority, in fact it goes so far as to say that The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Nothing about the “written” word of God here, in fact it is the spoken word of God that speaks through nature. Without getting lost in some New Age tangent here, the very reference sited here denies sola scriptura.

*[2] 1 Corinthians 1:21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. *

Again, this reference brings out “preaching” and “teaching” with no mention of “writing” or a limitation to what is written. It doesn’t even take one who is spiritually discerned to figure that one out!

 

[Maccabees]

*[3] Hebrews 1:1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. *

This does not say that God spoke through the writings of the prophets, though that certainly was one of the ways utilized. Again, we don’t see a “sola” limitation here, just an out of context Scripture reference.

*[4] Proverbs 22:19-21. That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee. Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? Luke 1:3-4. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Romans 15:4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Matthew 4:4, 7, 10. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God… Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God… Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Isaiah 8:19, 20. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?.. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. *

Finally, we have some mention of writing but we have no restriction to only that which is written. Again, the question must be asked, “Is God’s Word limited solely to that which was written?” Even those who affirm sola scriptura would not be so foolish to limit God in such a manner.

*[5] 2 Timothy 3:15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. *

1. 
   *]No Catholic denies that the Holy Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus - but that doesn’t say “sola” - does it? No, it doesn’t.
   *]Again, is God limited to just the written word of prophecy? Are we really supposed to limit God in that manner? Protestants that adhere to sola scriptura must limit God, for either we are limited to the written word only, or God lives through His Church that He built, and we can turn to His Church for guidance and instruction on matters not taught in Scripture.
   
   *[6] Hebrews 1:1-2. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. *
   
   This is the same reference in footnote [3], see comment above. **

 

[Maccabees]

*[9] 2 Peter 1:19, 21. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts… For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1 John 5:9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 Thessalonians 2:13. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. *

1. 
   *]2 Peter 1:19,21 - Catholics do not deny that Scripture comes from God.
   *]2 Timothy 3:16 - This verse speaks to the material sufficiency of Scripture, not to sola.
   *]1 John 5:9 - This does not say the “testimony” or “witness” of God is limited to the written form - nor does it confirm what would possibly constitute the written (or verbal) form.
   *]1 Thessalonians 2:13 - Please read on to v. 15: “So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold to the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours.” Verse 15 is a denial of sola scriptura, for we are to “stand firm” on the teachings, whether it is written or spoken!
   
   *[10] 1 Timothy 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. *
   
   It is quite ironic that this verse is cited at all. First off, it has nothing to do with the context of that paragraph where we find footnote 10. Secondly, this verse is often cited by Catholics to support the fact that it is the Church that is the pillar and ground of truth - as confirmed by the Scriptures! Amazing!

 

[Maccabees]

*[11] 1 John 2:20, 27. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things… But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. John 16:13-14. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. 1 Corinthians 2:10-12. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Isaiah 59:21. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. *

1. 
   *]1 John 2:20,27 - If anything, these verses support the Apostolic succession of annointing successors to follow them and to teach what they have taught. We don’t see any reference about anything written here.
   *]John 16:13-14 - Again, this speaks of nothing written, but moreso that the Holy Spirit would come to them and teach them into all truth, and it does not mention anything about “writing” but “speaking” and “hearing.”
   *]1 Corinthians 2:10-12 - Again, no mention of written word.
   *]Isaiah 59:12 - Again, no mention of anything written, only that it would be passed down, “from henceforth, forever.”
   
   *[12] 2 Timothy 3:15-17. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Galatians 1:8-9. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 2 Thessalonians 2:2. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. *
   
   1. 
      *]2 Timothy 3:15-17 - This verse talks of the material sufficiency. Catholics have no problem with this concept.
      *]Galatians 1:8-9 - It must be coming abundantly clear by this point in your reading, that Protestantism, in its many forms, has brought along with it several definitions of sola scriptura. We have seen several different forms in this very article. Some in close agreement, others don’t agree at all. Now, since this doctrine was not taught in Scripture, not practiced by Jesus and Not practiced by the Apostles, not even HEARD of for some 1500 years - who is preaching a different gospel?
      *]2 Thessalonians 2:2 - Again, this verse brings up both “word” (as in spoken) and “letter” as in written. This verse cannot be used to support sola scripture - it denies “sola.”

 

[Maccabees]

*[13] John 6:45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 1 Corinthians 2:9-12. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. *

1. 
   *]John 6:45 - There is no denial that the prophets speak of the coming Messiah, but this verse is not limiting itself to just what is written in the prophets! This verse tells us that those who “hear” and “learn” will come to Him. Again, this is not supportive of sola scriptura.
   *]1 Corinthians 2:9-12 - This verse begins with the phrase “as it is written” and goes on to tell us that “as it is written” we have received something else, namely the Holy Spirit, to guide us and lead us “to know the things that are freely given to us of God.” This sounds more supportive of the Church as guided by the Paraclete being what we have as the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
   
   *[14] 1 Corinthians 11:13-14. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 1 Corinthians 14:26, 40. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying… Let all things be done decently and in order. *
   
   1. 
      *]1 Corinthians 11:13-14 - I find it interesting here that this verse is cited in reference to Section VI, which says certain things must always be observed. In these verses it says a woman’s head must be covered when she prays, yet this is not practiced in most (virtually all) Protestant denominations. Sadly, this practice has fallen out of the commonplace at many Catholic parishes as well, with the exception of some of the more Traditional parishes. Still, we have Scripture in the New Testament saying women should cover their head when they pray - on what authority has this been overturned?
      *]1 Corinthians 14:26, 40 - This is something Catholics and Protestants alike should agree on.
      
      *[15] 2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. *
      
      Again, it is ironic that this verse is used in support for it says the unlearned and unstable would find Scriptures hard to understand and would interpret to their own destruction, how does this support sola scriptura? If anything, this verse screams for the Church, as led by the Holy Spirit, to guide us - especially the unlearned and unstable.
      
      *[16] Psalm 119:105, 130. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. *
      
      Here again we find this verse makes no mention of “written” in reference to “thy words.” I don’t think anyone denies that God’s Word is not always restricted to what is written

 

[Maccabees]

In conclusion, I have taken four of the most basic confessions of Protestantism, quoted verbatim their teaching on sola scriptura. The objective reader must come away from this reading seeing how lacking the foundational level of sola scriptura is, if not realizing the outright lie that sola scriptura is. Scripture does not teach sola scriptura, so that sola facto (fact alone) should convince anyone that sola scriptura is a false teaching, a teaching that was invented by men some time after the Scriptures were recorded. Since we do not find the teaching within the written Word of God - anyone adhering to a teaching that demands the sole rule of faith are the Scriptures must reject the rule itself

Gee you couldn’t look this up yourslef you big baby!:crying:
Your ignorance of looking up these different takes on sola scriptura is dumbfinding. You still haven’t given me your defitnion on sola scriptura on why it right and why these other defintions are wrong. I don’t even subscribe to sola scriptura and know there are differnces in interpretation of this doctrine. Considering this is a central tenet of your faith you should know more than me but don’t. Do you block out all other protestant interpretations besides your own? As a protestant since you conclude no one is infalliable you should study all takes and interpretation to decide what is truth for yourself. And in order to do so you must be able to do some research and Gof forbid you let a catholic do your research for you.

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

You haven’t even given me one definition of your take on sola scriptura. How can I start a dialogue when I don’t know where you stand.

You didn’t ask for a definition.

Your argumentation that protestantism is a monolyth of the same defintions and beliefs is simply laughable you really need to get around a little.

I never argued that. How can we have a discussion if you don’t properly represent what I write?

Again where do you stand where is you defintion? Your cowardice is deafning.

Gee you couldn’t look this up yourslef you big baby!

Comments like these are not just unreasonable; they’re immature. Not only did you fail to ask if I have actually researched the different definitions of Sola Scriptura in any capacity, you were the one who originally made the claim about multiple definitions. For you to then complain because I won’t substantiate your claims is unreasonable. If I claimed there were multiple definitions of the Catholic rule of faith and you challenged that assertion, would you then consider it fair for me to ask you to find such evidence for yourself?

Regarding the rest of your recent posts, I’ll read them over and post a response when I get a chance.

~Matt

 

[Maccabees]

I did ask for your defintion of sola scriptura several times.
ITs not my fault you have selective reading.
And are to lazy to give me a defitnion
I gave you the resources to look up. Yet you refused to look it up.
Instaead I had to waste my time cutting and pasting to no end. You don’t even thank me for my time. Geez next time look it up yourself. Your so lazy its unbeleivable.
And you are the one saying there are not more than 2 versions of this docttrine and that I am the one off base. So how am I wrong when I say you disagree with me when I say there are multiple version of protestant doctrine?
Your a liar and your lazy. Get your facts straight and start doing your research.
Your a waste of my invaluable time.

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

I did ask for your defintion of sola scriptura several times.

If you did, I would appreciate if you quoted yourself doing so “several” times so that I may apologize and that your comments about my character would be substantiated.

I gave you the resources to look up. Yet you refused to look it up.

I am familiar with most of those resources and do not believe that the definitions of Sola Scriptura provided within contradict. That is why I asked for a more detailed response on your part.

Your so lazy its unbeleivable.

Your a liar and your lazy.

Your a waste of my invaluable time.

Your comments are in need of moderation.

~Matt

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

I don’t even subscribe to sola scriptura and know there are differnces in interpretation of this doctrine.

I read the article you provided. The majority of it was irrelevant to our current discussion, as the goal is for you to demonstrate substantial, different interpretations of Sola Scriptura, not refute the validity of Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith.

The article did not compare various definitions and point out contradictions between them. If you have another source you wish to point me toward (a link will be fine) or a demonstration on your part that will substantiate your claims, I would be happy to read it and respond.

~Matt

 

[Maccabees]

Oh Gee I have to point to the times I asked you for your defintion of sola scriptura. Your ridiculous.

ANd yes the article is relevant. Read the differnet takes on sola scriptura by the confession and articles themsleves.
Your entire request is ridiculous I ask you for something as your defitnion of a doctine and you can’t give me anything.
I give you versions of sola scriptura and you want more.
I think I will end my part of the discussion as you want to be baby fed all this info while you want me to diaper you too.
You don’t even know what you beleive as you can’t proced me with even that info. This discussion is all take take take . you need to give a little bro.

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

Oh Gee I have to point to the times I asked you for your defintion of sola scriptura. Your ridiculous.

I am offering you a chance to point out my errors so I may apologize since I cannot find, during the appropriate time-frame, the instances where you asked me for a definition.

I think I will end my part of the discussion as you want to be baby fed all this info while you want me to diaper you too.

I have only asked for you to document your claim of substantially different definitions of Sola Scriptura. I’ve already stated that I’ve read the article you provided and didn’t find anything that demonstrated your position. I’m willing to “give” if you provide something substantial to interact with.

The conversation currently requires you to do more work not because I’m “lazy”, but because you’ve made claims that require such work. As I said earlier, if you can’t do the work to back up your claims to the first person who asks you, it may not be in your best interests to make such claims.

You don’t even know what you beleive as you can’t proced me with even that info. This discussion is all take take take . you need to give a little bro.

If you had asked, I would have gladly given you a definition.

Although I would agree with Sola Scriptura as forwarded by most Protestant confessions, here is a definition off the top of my head:

The Scriptures are the only infallible authority from which all matters binding on the conscience must come. It is sufficient in this manner in that it contains all information necessary to relate the Gospel. In regards to recent debates, it should be mentioned that Sola Scriptura does not deny the presence of an oral tradition during the days of the apostles that was equally as binding on those who heard it as the written word of God was. Sola Scriptura also does not deny the presence of church authority, teachers, etc.

~Matt

 

[RomanRyan1088]

Hello to all again…

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God. 1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

 

[RomanRyan1088]

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church. Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

 

[Aris]

I’ll add another.

In the letter of Jude, the author mentions Archangel Michael fighting with the devil over Moses’s Body.

But nowhere in the other parts of the Bible will you see this.

 

[Maccabees]

p90

The Scriptures are the only infallible authority from which all matters binding on the conscience must come.
It is sufficient in this manner in that it contains all information necessary to relate the Gospel. In regards to recent debates, it should be mentioned that Sola Scriptura does not deny the presence of an oral tradition during the days of the apostles that was equally as binding on those who heard it as the written word of God was. Sola Scriptura also does not deny the presence of church authority, teachers, etc.

Actually your defitnion is different than the other confessions I provided and they all contradict one another but suffice you won’t accept the evidence anyway. So I will move on from that dead horse.

Now that you provided your definition I have something to work with. And now that your provided it I know why you kept it from me. This definition if full of more holes than Swiss cheese.

I was surprised how you limited yourself to such small parameters. This definition surely doesn’t lend one to a rich spiritual life. I think you have forgotten how much catholic tradition has played in the proper morality of Christians you take it for granted that these things are to be found in scripture but they are not. The Catholic tradition of monogamy has little support in the Bible in fact polygamy has far more support in scripture in fact Luther gave certain members of his Lutheran movement the ok to be polygamist his authority was scripture. There is nothing in scripture barring it. Joseph Smith used the same protestant Bible to justify his polygamy. In the modern world you run into even more problems using such an ancient document to figure out modern problems.

Did God just want us to guess at moral truth that would effect anyone in a post Apostolic society? Face it the world has changed since the Bible was penned. The church was created as to be the living interpreter or the living word. With no one true church you have a word whose truth is frozen in the time it was written in. Its application for toady is at best guesswork among the thousands of denomination and opinions which claim to have the truth in its interpretation. One major problem with a definition like the one you gave is that, like the difference between Newtonian physics and quantam mechanics, Scripture can perhaps be considered a sufficient guide only until you reach the level of life where Scripture does not penetrate. Scriptures and the original concept of Sola Scriptura were written in a far different time, long before men could understand and define the precise gestation of the human baby inside the female uterus. They just assumed the precise biological process occurring in the conception and gestation of the human baby inside the female uterus. They just assumed that the womb was sacred and should not be violated . But in modern times, men have seen the gestation process under a microscope, assigning terms to the primitive stages of development such as a zygote, blastula, embryo and fetus. Not surpisingly , some of these same men have claimed that a blastuala is not really human but is mere mass of “undeveloped tissue.”

 

[Maccabees]

Therefore, if the pregnancy becomes inconvenient, many people feel there is no moral requirement to inhibit them from terminating the existence of the “undeveloped tissue.” Going to scripture is little help, for while Scripture alludes to life in the womb, it does not define when human life begins, nor does it give any information on the reasons life could be artificially given by your definition of sola scriptura, that since Scripture does not forbid aborting a blastula, it is perfectly alright to do so. But the Catholic Church insists that it is precisely in these particular areas of life, areas which Scripture either does not address clearly or does not address at all, that Catholic Church has taught that life begins at conception. Thus, no abortion is morally legitimate, no matter what stage the preborn has reached and no matter what the cause of pregnancy (e.g. rape, incest, now stem cell research) In short sufficiency and infalliability are of no use unless they can be applied to all areas of faith and morals no merely the ones that can be governed by sola scriptura.

Thus your denial of the full authority given to the Church by Christ both oral and written apostolic tradtion renders any supposed authority you have in the protestant world useless. History and present time attest to this. When Roe V Wade was being passed only the Roman Catholic church spoke out. The protestant world was eerily silent. After all it silently accepted contraception something going against oral Christian tradition what was one more unchristian teaching going against Christian tradition. Yes even the Southern Baptist Covention supported abortion! Protestant support and silence on this issue allowed abortion to happen in this country. Thankfully after a decade of seeing the ill effects of this practice on their own parisherners many southern Baptist and evangelicals reversed postions and were now anti-abortion joining the catholic church however ten years too late for Roe V Wade. Now we have a similar dilimina with stem cells the Roman Catholic Church once again stands ahead of all other churches against this sin against God. Thankfully some evangelical movements that are pro-life have joined us in our stand but the protestant world is divided on this issue as they are in abortion even if they claim to be pro-life. Some ok abortion in case of rape or incest.

Well if you have it broken down to you by an teaching authority from Christ than their can be no debate life starts at conception and no matter what good reason you give abortion or destroying of this life for research or cures is not an option it is life.

Now we have churches looking the other way at stem-cells since it can benefit other life mainly the possibility of their own makes this intriguing for many Christians.

Where is the scriptural support for abortion but not if its rape or incest? There is none but protestant churches use it all the time. Where does this authority comes from its not from scripture where as you see does not cover everything and it’s not from the charism that Christ gave his church through apostolic succession. Along with the keys he gives to Peter alone. Where does the Bible address matters of extreme importance in conscience of faith and morals like cloning, contraception, in-vitrofertilization, stem-cell research, etc?

 

[Maccabees]

p90
Sola Scriptura also does not deny the presence of church authority, teachers, etc.
Yeah but if denies them as infalliable and binding guides.
That is the scriptural basis of what the church is and what it is for. It is not a place to give only a interpretation of scripture (one amony many opinions) but a place to give the church instruction that is binding upon the whole church. When Protestants clearly practice unbiblical practices for instance remarrying after divorce do protestant churches bind and loose any authority given to them by Christ? No so you have many many remarried Christian disobeying the Bible without suffering any church discipline. Is this Biblical? Even if discipline nothig stops them from starting their own church with eqaul authority their interpretation of scripture or going to another church with equal authority ie another pastor’s interpretationf of scripture.
No wonder church discipline as this is usually ignored in protestant circles its a no win situttion for the enforcing party which has no power really.
Can they for example declare the canon of scripture form its own authority given to it by Christ? Something binding on all Christians the NT canon of the catholic church.
How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark etc and how do you know Mark had the authority to write scripture he was not an apostle. Apart from the catholic church tradition you don’t know who, why or what?

 

[Maccabees]

If the main difference between one spiritual source and another is infalliability, is it not required of the infallible source to claim that (1) it is the only infalliable source, and (2) disclaim other sources that are logical candidates for infallibility? This is where the issue becomes most crucial. Catholic theologians, although they recognize that Scripture testifies to its own inerrancy, do not find in Scripture a claim that it is the only infalliable authority, nor do they find Scripture disclaiming other worthy candidates to infallibility, such as the Church and Tradition. In fact Scripture recognizes these two other sources as infalliable right along with itself. (Matthew 16:18-19; John 16:13; 2 Thes 2:15: 1 Tim 3:15) You conveniently qualify this authority that Christ gave the church to only during the times of the apostles. Where is that found in the Bible? There is no expiration date on the authority of the church the tradition of the church. These powers and authorities are forever just like the written tradtion. Just where are the seperate qualifications you give to the church and oral tradtion in reagrads to an expiration period of each authroity? None it can’t be found anywhere except in the protestant imagination and a tradtion of man. Since there is no distinction between the two types of tradition both are equally binding. Can you find me where there is a difference? You have interjected your own man made tradtions into the validlity of the apostolic tradions. You have replaced apostolic tradtion with your tradtion of man. When we add to this the dilemma we face with these issues enumerated above that Scripture does not address, (eg contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, cloning, heck sex change operations!) it becomes obvious that if we truly want to Glofiy God we sorely need an infalliable guide, for God is not glorified by ignorance or popular opinion . If he saves us it will only be because he has overlooked our ignorance. Is not God truly glorified when his people have answers to all the crucial questions of faith and morals so they can live lives that , without doubt please him?

Since your consicience is finite and the Scriptures do not address many of the world social woes that affect a Christians faith and morals Christ has provided us a Church he established to not leave us orphans. Scripture alone can be material sufficient in giving you enternal life but then so could a four page gospel tract. You want the whole Bible not just the tract so you can live to the fullest the life Christ intended you to live. Same with the church and her tradtions it is provided and it should be desired in order for you to live to the fullest the proper Christian life with proper faith and morals.

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

Actually your defitnion is different than the other confessions I provided and they all contradict one another but suffice you wonÕt accept the evidence anyway. So I will move on from that dead horse.

You haven’t provided any evidence. You just produced the confessions and made my look over them for contradictions. I haven’t found any and you aren’t willing to substantiate your position. For someone who wants to dialogue, why won’t you substantiate your claims?

The point of this thread is to explain Sola Scriptura to others, not to critique it. I would prefer that it remained that way simply because so many Catholics do not understand a primary definition of the doctrine used by so many today. If you want to debate me on my specific definition of Sola Scriptura, I will be willing to do that either in another thread or in PM.

~Matt