"If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture"

[Church_Militant]

However, if anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in, or is against what scripture says, I will hold to scripture over the teacher

.Okay…please take careful note of what this non-Catholic said.

Now…the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is the sole and ultimate authority for all Christian belief and practice, right?

So…then, any n-C who believes this doctrine should be able to supply the specific Bible references where this is taught in the Bible, right?

Have any of you reading this thread seen these passages because I have read the Bible many times and have yet to find them.

If that is correct, then doesn’t the person who made the statement above now have to either produce these references, or else abandon their adherence to said teachers/preachers because they are teaching something that is not in and contradicts the scriptures?

Please, n-Cs show us these scriptures, and feel free to use a Catholic Bible if you’d like, since it will give you 7 more books to work with.

I believe you have only two options.

1. 
   *]Provide specific scriptural support, or
   *]Abandon the doctrine and those who preach and teach it.

 

[Poof]

When I asked a protestant friend of mine the same question he told me that truth of sola scriptura is something we have to assume, just like the trinity, it isn’t in the bible, yet we have to assume that it is true.

Pretty solid answer if you ask me . I wonder what other protestants have to say about this…

 

[grannymh]

When I asked a protestant friend of mine the same question he told me that truth of sola scriptura is something we have to assume, just like the trinity, it isn’t in the bible, yet we have to assume that it is true.

Pretty solid answer if you ask me . I wonder what other protestants have to say about this…

The Trinity is in Scripture. Please read the Gospel of John, Chapter 14.

 

[philial]

Not only is the Trinity pure Scripture in all but name, we can see that the early church never heard of ‘sola scriptura’ - it wouldn’t have been possible. And since the canon of scripture wasn’t finalised for several centuries we can see that it is not something on which the Church is built.

we rely, firstly, on the teaching of the apostles and their successors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - of which examples Scripture abounds!

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Now…the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is the sole and ultimate authority for all Christian belief and practice, right?

So…then, any n-C who believes this doctrine should be able to supply the specific Bible references where this is taught in the Bible, right?

. . .]
If that is correct, then doesn’t the person who made the statement above now have to either produce these references, or else abandon their adherence to said teachers/preachers because they are teaching something that is not in and contradicts the scriptures?

Please, n-Cs show us these scriptures, and feel free to use a Catholic Bible if you’d like, since it will give you 7 more books to work with.

I’m pretty tired of these threads that keep “discussing” about sola scriptura. There is more to Catholicism than sola scriptura vs sacred tradition/sacred scripture that every user that starts these types of threads do their own religion injustice.

The non-Catholic’s statement can be justified by referring to Paul’s epistle to Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8). Israel was urged to obey God and not to add or to subtract anything that was not commanded by God himself: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). This was repeated by Moses later, when he instructed “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32). Joshua, who succeeded Moses, also remarked to the same effect to the Israelites: “. . .] Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go” (Joshua 1:7). The punishment for adding or subtracting anything was quite severe. In the Revelation to John, anyone who added or subtracted from the given prophecy would experience the “plagues described in this book” (Revelation 22:18). This is also reiterated in the second epistle of Peter, that false teachers would bring upon “swift destruction on themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). Both are probably foreshadowed by the law commanded in Deuteronomy, which laid out that false prophets and teachers were to be stoned, especially those who initiated rebellion from God: “That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 13:5).

You asked for biblical references, so there it is. Hope that helps.

 

[grannymh]

I’m pretty tired of these threads that keep “discussing” about sola scriptura. There is more to Catholicism than sola scriptura vs sacred tradition/sacred scripture that every user that starts these types of threads do their own religion injustice.

The non-Catholic’s statement can be justified by referring to Paul’s epistle to Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8). Israel was urged to obey God and not to add or to subtract anything that was not commanded by God himself: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). This was repeated by Moses later, when he instructed “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32). Joshua, who succeeded Moses, also remarked to the same effect to the Israelites: “. . .] Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go” (Joshua 1:7). The punishment for adding or subtracting anything was quite severe. In the Revelation to John, anyone who added or subtracted from the given prophecy would experience the “plagues described in this book” (Revelation 22:18). This is also reiterated in the second epistle of Peter, that false teachers would bring upon “swift destruction on themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). Both are probably foreshadowed by the law commanded in Deuteronomy, which laid out that false prophets and teachers were to be stoned, especially those who initiated rebellion from God: “That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 13:5).

You asked for biblical references, so there it is. Hope that helps.

These references refer to discernment which is a proper method in determining God’s revelation. As such, they are instructive then and now.

The instructions for discernment, see above, for the most part are given to the community and/or its leaders. When one carefully reads the Gospel of John, Chapter 14 in its context, i.e., its location, its point in time, the people present, the status of the people present, and the status of the presenter, one can easily recognize that Christ, Himself, is establishing His Church as a continuation of His Presence .

Chapter 14 is specific as to where the necessary discernment comes from. The Holy Spirit is sent as the Protector of all that Christ has taught.

On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is present to the apostles as the beginning of the Catholic Church. Further in Acts,(Chapter 15, the Council of Jerusalem) the apostles use God’s gift of discernment as a group designated as the leaders of Christ’s Church. This pattern of discernment continues today. This is why Catholicism is not Sola Scriptura.

 

[ahs]

If you use the OT verses to defend sola scritura (which they do not), then you must abandon the NT because it can be seen as “adding or subtracting” from the law in reference, depending on which of the 40,000+ opinions you want to prescribe to.

Also, not only does the Bible not support sola scriptura, but it also outright rejects it.
1 Cor 11:2
2 Thess 2:15
2 Thess 3:16
Jn 21:25
Mk 13:31
…among others…

 

[ahs]

I’m pretty tired of these threads that keep “discussing” about sola scriptura. There is more to Catholicism than sola scriptura vs sacred tradition/sacred scripture that every user that starts these types of threads do their own religion injustice.

The non-Catholic’s statement can be justified by referring to Paul’s epistle to Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8). Israel was urged to obey God and not to add or to subtract anything that was not commanded by God himself: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). This was repeated by Moses later, when he instructed “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32). Joshua, who succeeded Moses, also remarked to the same effect to the Israelites: “. . .] Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go” (Joshua 1:7). The punishment for adding or subtracting anything was quite severe. In the Revelation to John, anyone who added or subtracted from the given prophecy would experience the “plagues described in this book” (Revelation 22:18). This is also reiterated in the second epistle of Peter, that false teachers would bring upon “swift destruction on themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). Both are probably foreshadowed by the law commanded in Deuteronomy, which laid out that false prophets and teachers were to be stoned, especially those who initiated rebellion from God: “That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 13:5).

You asked for biblical references, so there it is. Hope that helps.

None of these support sola scriptura. The OT for the reason I mentioned above. Your NT references say absolutly nothing about rejecting Chruch Tradition. They warn against false teachings. See the verses I mentioned in my above post.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

None of these support sola scriptura. The OT for the reason I mentioned above. Your NT references say absolutly nothing about rejecting Chruch Tradition. They warn against false teachings. See the verses I mentioned in my above post.

Neither does sola scriptura reject church tradition. The idea is only asserting which of the two are the higher authority if the two are in contradiction.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Neither does sola scriptura reject church tradition. The idea is only asserting which of the two are the higher authority if the two are in contradiction.

Hello Dave,

Yes, sola scriptura does reject church tradition. Hence the word “sola” meaning “solely”. In full, it is “scripture solely” or more correctly, “by scripture alone”. You might instead be referring to Prima Scriptura, which places emphasis on the Bible and less on church tradition/general revelation (e.g. from charismatic gifts, etc)

 

[Cat_Herder]

No Protestant actually practices sola scriptura anyway.

Everyone who holds to “salvation by grace alone through faith alone” would say–despite the scriptural injunctions regarding original sin–that children below the age of reason (i.e. not well formed enough to accept Christ) are saved from original sin simply because they are below the age of reason. The concept of an age of reason is not found anywhere in the Bible. Thus the catch-phrase “Everything you need to be saved is in the Bible” is also wrong because no one can know at what age one is “saved” due to being below that age, and thus when one has to say the sinner’s prayer OR ELSE. And the corollary of “once saved always saved” also falls apart because of the OR ELSE factor. And so the whole ball of wax–faith alone, OSAS, and sola scriptura–is false.

Thus, as Dave implies, there really is no such thing as “sola scriptura vs. tradition.” It is simply a matter of whose tradition is better: the Tradition that came from Christ through the Apostles and preserved by the Catholic Church, or the one that came from (Protestant) men.

 

[Church_Militant]

When I asked a protestant friend of mine the same question he told me that truth of sola scriptura is something we have to assume, just like the trinity, it isn’t in the bible, yet we have to assume that it is true.

Pretty solid answer if you ask me . I wonder what other protestants have to say about this…

As you can see. several of us disagree, and why. The Trinity is very implicitly taught in the scriptures, whereas there is not even an implicit inference to support Sola Scriptura. It’s just not there my friend.

Did you point out to him that his very statement contradicts the doctrine of SS because if SS is true, then it has to have it’s basis in the Bible. If, as he told you, it’s not there then…

The Trinity is in Scripture. Please read the Gospel of John, Chapter 14.

Not only is the Trinity pure Scripture in all but name, we can see that the early church never heard of ‘sola scriptura’ - it wouldn’t have been possible. And since the canon of scripture wasn’t finalized for several centuries we can see that it is not something on which the Church is built.

we rely, firstly, on the teaching of the apostles and their successors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - of which examples Scripture abounds!

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m pretty tired of these threads that keep “discussing” about sola scriptura. There is more to Catholicism than sola scriptura vs sacred tradition/sacred scripture that every user that starts these types of threads do their own religion injustice.

No offense Bohm, but if it grinds you that badly them maybe you should ignore them.

The non-Catholic’s statement can be justified by referring to Paul’s epistle to Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8).

I’m sorry, but that verse has nothing at all to do with Sola Scriptura since it refers to oral preaching and not the written scriptures. It actually more applies to the difference between the authentic Christian Gospel of salvation and others, as I get into in my blog article Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

Israel was urged to obey God and not to add or to subtract anything that was not commanded by God himself: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). This was repeated by Moses later, when he instructed “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32). Joshua, who succeeded Moses, also remarked to the same effect to the Israelites: “. . .] Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go” (Joshua 1:7).

The problem here is that you seek to take these verses out of both Biblical and historical context, because when you look them up, you find that they are referring to the first 5 books of the Old Testament and since there are 59 other books that come after them it cannot be taken that way unless you throw all 59 other books out of the canon…not to mention the 27 books of the New Testament.

The punishment for adding or subtracting anything was quite severe. In the Revelation to John, anyone who added or subtracted from the given prophecy would experience the “plagues described in this book” (Revelation 22:18). This is also reiterated in the second epistle of Peter, that false teachers would bring upon “swift destruction on themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). Both are probably foreshadowed by the law commanded in Deuteronomy, which laid out that false prophets and teachers were to be stoned, especially those who initiated rebellion from God: “That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 13:5).

Again, you have misapplied a verse from Revelation. Look again at its context…it very clearly says, “18]I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19] and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Your quotes from Deuteronomy 13 do not even remotely apply to SS, since they do not mention the scriptures at all, but condemn oral false prophecies.

You asked for biblical references, so there it is. Hope that helps.

Well, it certainly helps us see that I was correct to state that n-Cs cannot provide real scriptural support for Sola Scriptura.
Thanks for that Bohm…

 

[Church_Militant]

Neither does sola scriptura reject church tradition. The idea is only asserting which of the two are the higher authority if the two are in contradiction.

Okay, Dave.
Please show us where exactly this idea is found in the Bible?

I have yet to see any such supporting scripture.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The problem here is that you seek to take these verses out of both Biblical and historical context, because when you look them up, you find that they are referring to the first 5 books of the Old Testament and since there are 59 other books that come after them it cannot be taken that way unless you throw all 59 other books out of the canon…not to mention the 27 books of the New Testament.

Not really, because the Israelites were still within the age of revelation (which ultimately ceased at the death of the last apostle in 100 AD). This meant that the prophets could reveal to Humanity what messages God had wanted to pass on. Hence the importance of the “test” outlined in Deuteronomy that if a prophet had spoken something that did not come to pass, he was a false prophet and the Israelites were not to be afraid of him. So serious was the crime of giving a false prophecy that death was its penalty (Deuteronomy 13:5).

The common adage is that the “Old Testament is reflected in the New Testament, and the New Testament is reflected in the Old Testament”. The two parts of the Bible aren’t dichotomies as it is they are complimentary. Isaiah prophesied about Jesus in the Old Testament, referring to him as a “man of sorrows” (Isaiah 53:3). Jews didn’t follow Jesus not because it was a “new law” per se as it is that it was a fulfillment of prophecy itself (cf. Isaiah 6:9, Matthew 13:14, Mark 4:12): “In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving”. Jesus said himself he had come to fulfill, rather than abolish, the law and the prophets: “"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). The Trinity, contrary to common misconception, is also entirely biblical, even from the start of the Book of Genesis: “Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness …]” (Genesis 1:26). Even the derivative Hebrew word, “Elohim”, is plural, signifying the Trinity. This is clarified in the New Testament with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Sola Scriptura isn’t about rejecting tradition. As your non-Catholic alluded to, it is about rejecting extra-biblical, anti-biblical or outright false doctrines. Non-Catholics believe in sola scriptura as they believe Scripture is God-breathed: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, Scripture is its own authority and takes precedence over the teachings of others.

Well, it certainly helps us see that I was correct to state that n-Cs cannot provide real scriptural support for Sola Scriptura.
Thanks for that Bohm…

Even if a non-Catholic provided scriptural proof for sola scriptura, you wouldn’t be convinced. That’s why I asked what exactly is the purpose of this thread, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by providing an answer as I thought your intention was to learn about other people’s beliefs. You may find the above biblical verses to not be indicative or an allusion to sola scriptura, but there are others that do. It’s actually hypocritical, because Catholics on here generally point out to one verse in the Book of Maccabees to “prove” Purgatory, yet when a non-Catholic does the same practice to prove their own point of view (e.g. once saved always saved, sola fide, etc), you all get angry and start numerous threads in protest. There is also no biblical proof for the perpetual virginity of Mary (I tried when I was Catholic, but to no avail).

Anyway, I thought I would help by providing some biblical verses and I hope that sheds some light on what the non-Catholic in the original post meant. Hopefully other Protestants who come across this thread may give you the “answer” you’re looking for.

 

[Brywan]

Back in the day when I held to “Bible Alone” thinking, I would have quoted II Timothy 3:16, 17:

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work…"

The emphasis here being that scripture holds everything we need–we don’t need anything else.

Now, on the other side of the Tiber, I can see the holes in that interpretation–not the least of which is the **teaching **of scripture that we need the oral traditions… So part of being “adequate” is to hold to the teachings we have received–both written and oral (2 Thess 2:15).

 

[Philthy]

The Trinity is in Scripture. Please read the Gospel of John, Chapter 14.

Very vague language Granny, and somewhat limited reasoning as well. First off, in a literal sense, there is no Trinity “in” Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity in it’s most basic form (ie God is a perfect unity of three) is able to be deduced from what Scripture reveals. Unfortunately, the contention that something other than the doctrine of the Trinity is able to be deduced from Scripture is also true. It required a council (Nicaea, I believe) relatively early on to settle this issue (and others) and this issue is a big part of why the Creed of the Council of Nicaea (Nicene Creed) was formulated and made part of the Liturgy.

This issue does highlight why the claim that SS adherents also accept church tradition as long as it doesnt contradict Scripture is completely unworkable. Ultimately the decision of whether a doctrine is aligned with Scripture or whether it contradicts it must be made, and Scripture alone can’t make decisions, only people can. And once you have people making decisions you can no longer claim that you are relying on Scripture Alone.

 

[JonNC]

=Church Militant;8535943][Okay…please take careful note of what this non-Catholic said.

Now…the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is the sole and ultimate authority for all Christian belief and practice, right?

Not exactly. Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church which holds teachers, teaching and doctrine accountable. It is the final norm.

So…then, any n-C who believes this doctrine should be able to supply the specific Bible references where this is taught in the Bible

, right?
No. Sola scriptura is a practice, used by the Church for hermeunetics. IOW, Catholics and Orthodox are not condemned for not holding to SS.

Have any of you reading this thread seen these passages because I have read the Bible many times and have yet to find them.

If that is correct, then doesn’t the person who made the statement above now have to either produce these references, or else abandon their adherence to said teachers/preachers because they are teaching something that is not in and contradicts the scriptures?

It depends on what is meant by “in scripture”. Trinity is “in” scripture, so is “Holy Theotokos”, and one might say the nature of Christ, though not explicitly so.

Please

, n-Cs show us these scriptures, and feel free to use a Catholic Bible if you’d like, since it will give you 7 more books to work with.
Well, Luther’s translation included one more than that, but that said:

I believe you have only two options.

1. 
   *]Provide specific scriptural support, or
   *]Abandon the doctrine and those who preach and teach it.

1. 
   The way you present the practice is not my understanding of it.
   
   Jon
   [/quote]

 

[grannymh]

Very vague language Granny, and somewhat limited reasoning as well.

I counted three persons and saw a relationship among them. It is that simple.

Just imagine Jesus’ loving concern for future Catholics. Imagine the power of the three Persons. Yes, the Councils did declare Divine Revelation regarding the Trinity.
On the other hand, John, Chapter 14 is great for meditation on the truth and action of the Trinity.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Okay, Dave.
Please show us where exactly this idea is found in the Bible?

I have yet to see any such supporting scripture.

I guess I don’t understand your need to find this in the Bible. Sola scriptura is a hermeneutical practice, not a dogma.