If Sola Scriptura is true

[christcnection1]

If Sola Scriptura is true, did God do a poor job of leading His people in all truth?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If Sola Scriptura is true, did God do a poor job of leading His people in all truth?

It depends on how Sola Scriptura is defined. On the thread Is Sola Scriptura idolatry? SyCarl claims that Sola Scriptura allows folks to ‘teach from the Bible.’

If Mr Carl’s claim is true, then Jesus did not do a poor job of leading people in all truth provided that all of what he taught was from the Old Testament. (The Old Testament was the only Scripture around at the time.)

But, He also taught the Gospel which was not in the Old Testament.

So the teaching of the Gospel would have been extra-scriptural teaching and therefore not covered by Sola Scriptura as being infallible teaching. And therefore Jesus would not have been leading people in all truth. Which doesn’t make sense, does it?

If Mr Carl’s claim is not true, then Jesus did do a poor job of leading people in all truth because he taught the Gospel which was extra-scriptural at the time that Jesus taught.

Therefore the teaching of the Gospel would have been extra-scriptural and therefore not covered by Sola Scriptura as being infallible teaching.

But I do not believe that Jesus did a poor job of leading people in all truth. Why did He come if not to do a perfect job leading people in all truth?

I believe that the oral teaching of Jesus proves the inconsistency of Sola Scriptura and that it cannot be practised.

Now apparently there is a Sola Scriptura escape clause somewhere out there. That Sola Scriptura holds true except in ‘the period of inscripturation’ during the 1st century. Does anyone have any insight into this? Thank you.

 

[po18guy]

God never fails. Only we do. For “sola scriptura” (only scripture) to have any weight or credibility, the New Testament would have begun with that exact phrase. Since it appears nowhere in the bible, those who have only the bible for inspiration contradict themselves to even mention it.

Quite the contrary is true: John (the beloved Disciple) 21:25 “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”.

WAIT! If much more of what Christ did is NOT written than what was written down, doesn’t that mean that “Bible Christians” are, in effect, using sacred Cliff’s Notes? The bible is beautiful, inspired reading. However, it is like a book written about the life of someone. It contains much, but there was so much more to that life.

Paul also clearly used more than just scripture: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Word of mouth was oral tradition and the letters were not considered by their authors to be scripture. If they were, it would say so, right?

In truth, sola scriptura was promulgated as a basis for a heretical church that had discarded the Body and Blood of Christ as spiritual food and drink; discarded five of the seven sacraments; discarded seven books of “Scriptura”; lost Apostolic succession and sought to distance itself from the church it left.

Pray for them constantly, that they might have open minds and hearts to the fullness of truth.

Peace to the entire Body of Christ.

 

[SyCarl]

It depends on how Sola Scriptura is defined. On the thread Is Sola Scriptura idolatry? SyCarl claims that Sola Scriptura allows folks to ‘teach from the Bible.’

If Mr Carl’s claim is true, then Jesus did not do a poor job of leading people in all truth provided that all of what he taught was from the Old Testament. (The Old Testament was the only Scripture around at the time.)

But, He also taught the Gospel which was not in the Old Testament.

So the teaching of the Gospel would have been extra-scriptural teaching and therefore not covered by Sola Scriptura as being infallible teaching. And therefore Jesus would not have been leading people in all truth. Which doesn’t make sense, does it?

If Mr Carl’s claim is not true, then Jesus did do a poor job of leading people in all truth because he taught the Gospel which was extra-scriptural at the time that Jesus taught.

Therefore the teaching of the Gospel would have been extra-scriptural and therefore not covered by Sola Scriptura as being infallible teaching.
.

 

[christcnection1]

Quite the contrary is true: John (the beloved Disciple) 21:25 “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”.

WAIT! If much more of what Christ did is NOT written than what was written down, doesn’t that mean that “Bible Christians” are, in effect, using sacred Cliff’s Notes?

Hehe…

Well, I will give them more credit than that, but you make a fair point. If Jesus actually spoke that much, it assumes there was more He wanted people to know.

Clearly, it sounds like the Lord intended us to know more than what was written. If that’s true, it’s not unreasonable to conclude He provided a means to know some of those glorious truths.

 

[SyCarl]

It depends on how Sola Scriptura is defined. On the thread Is Sola Scriptura idolatry? SyCarl claims that Sola Scriptura allows folks to ‘teach from the Bible.’

If Mr Carl’s claim is true, then Jesus did not do a poor job of leading people in all truth provided that all of what he taught was from the Old Testament. (The Old Testament was the only Scripture around at the time.)

But, He also taught the Gospel which was not in the Old Testament.

So the teaching of the Gospel would have been extra-scriptural teaching and therefore not covered by Sola Scriptura as being infallible teaching. And therefore Jesus would not have been leading people in all truth. Which doesn’t make sense, does it?

If Mr Carl’s claim is not true, then Jesus did do a poor job of leading people in all truth because he taught the Gospel which was extra-scriptural at the time that Jesus taught.

Therefore the teaching of the Gospel would have been extra-scriptural and therefore not covered by Sola Scriptura as being infallible teaching.

But I do not believe that Jesus did a poor job of leading people in all truth. Why did He come if not to do a perfect job leading people in all truth?

I believe that the oral teaching of Jesus proves the inconsistency of Sola Scriptura and that it cannot be practised.

Now apparently there is a Sola Scriptura escape clause somewhere out there. That Sola Scriptura holds true except in ‘the period of inscripturation’ during the 1st century. Does anyone have any insight into this? Thank you.

Sola Scriptura does not apply to a period of new revelation. Certainly it did not apply to Jesus as Jesus is God. Jesus’ preaching, and that of the Apostles was the source of new Scripture. The end of revelation came with the death of the last Apostle. By that time the entire New Testament had been written. although not yet compiled.

The New Testament does not necessarily contain everything that Jesus did but it contains what is necessary for salvation.

Teaching what is contained in the Bible would be sufficient, if believed and acted upon, to recieve salvation. If something is not contained in Scripture it may be true but it is not necessary. Knowledge is good but not all knowledge is required. To give a trivial example, we do not know the colour of Jesus’ eyes. This knowledge may have been passed on by some means but it is not necessary to know it for salvation. have been passed downIf something contradicts Scripture it is wrong.

There is a place for tradition and church authority under the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Fallible men or churches can convey the truth of the Gospel to others. Traditions such as the celebration of Christmas and Easter do not contradict Scripture and so are fine, but not required. Other traditions can be the liturgy used to the extent it is not dictated by Scripture as the formula for baptism is, clerical dress and the use of music in worship.

 

[estesbob]

Sola Scriptura does not apply to a period of new revelation. Certainly it did not apply to Jesus as Jesus is God. Jesus’ preaching, and that of the Apostles was the source of new Scripture. The end of revelation came with the death of the last Apostle. By that time the entire New Testament had been written. although not yet compiled.

Can you show us where in Scripture it says that the death of the last Apostle was the end of revelation?

The New Testament does not necessarily contain everything that Jesus did but it contains what is necessary for salvation.

I guess in an indirect way it does becuase it narrates the founding of Christ Church and the necessity of his Church for Salvation. But one thing Scripture most certainly never does is substantiate -Sola Scriptura. a doctine that no one even dreamed of for 1,500 years after Christ founded his Church

Teaching what is contained in the Bible would be sufficient, if believed and acted upon, to recieve salvation. If something is not contained in Scripture it may be true but it is not necessary. Knowledge is good but not all knowledge is required. To give a trivial example, we do not know the colour of Jesus’ eyes. This knowledge may have been passed on by some means but it is not necessary to know it for salvation. have been passed downIf something contradicts Scripture it is wrong.

Of course this denies salvation to everyone who lived for the first 400 or so years before Sciptuiire was codified and denies slavtion to all but the literate who had acess to Scripture for the 1,000 years or so. It would seem that those who embrace Sola Scriptura have to considewr Guttenberg to be co-redeemer with Christ

It was the Church that kept the Faith alive in spite of Scripture being unavailable to all but a very few. And during this time the ffaithful were taught doctrines that are completely at odds with those that supposedly flowed from scripture 1,500 years later.

There is a place for tradition and church authority under the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Fallible men or churches can convey the truth of the Gospel to others. Traditions such as the celebration of Christmas and Easter do not contradict Scripture and so are fine, but not required. Other traditions can be the liturgy used to the extent it is not dictated by Scripture as the formula for baptism is, clerical dress and the use of music in worship.

The Truth is expressed by the thee pillars of the Church.-Scipture , Tradition and the Magestrium. All three are necessary to understand our Faith-all three are present ONLY in the Catholic Cburch

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

The New Testament does not necessarily contain everything that Jesus did but it contains what is necessary for salvation.

You say that Scripture contains what is necessary for Salvation.

C Thomas says that Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine.

He also says that Salvation comes from various sources.

Who is right? You or C Thomas? Who decides who is right?

SyCarl:

Teaching what is contained in the Bible would be sufficient, if believed and acted upon, to recieve salvation. If something is not contained in Scripture it may be true but it is not necessary. Knowledge is good but not all knowledge is required. To give a trivial example, we do not know the colour of Jesus’ eyes. This knowledge may have been passed on by some means but it is not necessary to know it for salvation. have been passed downIf something contradicts Scripture it is wrong.

How is this relevant to the discussion?

SyCarl:

There is a place for tradition and church authority under the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Fallible men or churches can convey the truth of the Gospel to others.

Uh-huh. We have to go to Scripture which is the infallible source of doctrine for what is necessary for Salvation which can be acquired from various sources while fallible men convey the truth of the Gospel to others.

SyCarl:

Traditions such as the celebration of Christmas and Easter do not contradict Scripture and so are fine, but not required.

This is an equivocation. Traditions and the Tradition of the Catholic Church are two completely different things.

SyCarl:

Other traditions can be the liturgy used to the extent it is not dictated by Scripture as the formula for baptism is, clerical dress and the use of music in worship.

Since this is not a sentence, I am not going to attempt to interpret it. If you wish to rewrite it so that it is a sentence that might be helpful to the discussion. Thank you.

 

[christcnection1]

The New Testament does not necessarily contain everything that Jesus did but it contains what is necessary for salvation.

If you go on a long hiking trip through a remote and barren region, can you survive off of tap water and stale bread? This is an example of what a “luke-warm” Protestant (or even a bad Catholic) would take. (the bare minimum)

The faithful Catholic would take a backpack, a large quantity of pure water, many types of nutritious food, a first-aid kit, GPS (and a map for backup), matches stored in a waterproof bag, and a number of other things, etc…

Unfortunately, the Protestant only has access to local “five and dime” store. Catholics have access to Gander Mountain, Cabela’s, and a Bass Pro Shop with a much higher budget.

We will not be clawing our way to salvation. No! We will be victorious as we use the graces God has bestowed on His glorious Church.

Indeed, we don’t absolutely “need” all these things (depending on what we are talking about), but our chances of survival are far better.

Do I want to try “persevering to the end” on tap water and stale bread?

No thank you!!! I will humbly take the Bread of Life and all the other truths God has revealed to His people since the early Church. Thanks be to God, He continues to sharpen our survival skills in this wilderness.

 

[SyCarl]

You say that Scripture contains what is necessary for Salvation.

C Thomas says that Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine.

He also says that Salvation comes from various sources.

He also says:

**The Bible is the ultimate infallible source of what you need to be justified. ** But you can get the relevant information through some fallible source and be just as saved. If a friend tells you the relevant information you need to come to a saving faith in Christ and you respond to it, the information has been transmitted to you fallibly. But nonetheless, it can be enough if it produces a saving faith. There is no requirement that a saving faith be acquired through an infallible source. Sola scriptura becomes very important on this view, though, where the question is how to judge fallible claims about doctrine. If sola scriptura is correct, then we ultimately need to weigh any extra-biblical claims about doctrine to see if they conform to scripture. If they violate scripture, they must cannot be accepted. So scripture is the ultimate authority, although it does not follow that anybody needs to read it to be saved.
CThomas

And I said:

Fallible men or churches can convey the truth of the Gospel to others.

So he also says that it contains what is needed and I said that you can get the truth from fallible sources.

Who is right? You or C Thomas? Who decides who is right?

So we are both right since we are saying the same things.

How is this relevant to the discussion?

It is relevant in that it gives an example of something we could know but don’t need to know.

Uh-huh. We have to go to Scripture which is the infallible source of doctrine for what is necessary for Salvation which can be acquired from various sources while fallible men convey the truth of the Gospel to others.

Yes

Since this is not a sentence, I am not going to attempt to interpret it. If you wish to rewrite it so that it is a sentence that might be helpful to the discussion. Thank you.

It is in fact a sentence if you read it properly. It gives liturgy, clerical dress and the use of music as examples of other traditions.

 

[SyCarl]

If you go on a long hiking trip through a remote and barren region, can you survive off of tap water and stale bread? This is an example of what a “luke-warm” Protestant (or even a bad Catholic) would take. (the bare minimum)

The faithful Catholic would take a backpack, a large quantity of pure water, many types of nutritious food, a first-aid kit, GPS (and a map for backup), matches stored in a waterproof bag, and a number of other things, etc…

Unfortunately, the Protestant only has access to local “five and dime” store. Catholics have access to Gander Mountain, Cabela’s, and a Bass Pro Shop with a much higher budget.

We will not be clawing our way to salvation. No! We will be victorious as we use the graces God has bestowed on His glorious Church.

Indeed, we don’t absolutely “need” all these things (depending on what we are talking about), but our chances of survival are far better.

Do I want to try “persevering to the end” on tap water and stale bread?

No thank you!!! I will humbly take the Bread of Life and all the other truths God has revealed to His people since the early Church. Thanks be to God, He continues to sharpen our survival skills in this wilderness.

And the Catholic may well far part way there since he is carrying so much excess baggage.

 

[Milliardo]

And the Catholic may well far part way there since he is carrying so much excess baggage.

The Catholic would survive far better in the journey with many things at his disposal though.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

%between%
Uh-huh. We have to go to Scripture which is the infallible source of doctrine for what is necessary for Salvation which can be acquired from various sources while fallible men convey the truth of the Gospel to others.

SyCarl:

Yes

All righty then.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

It is relevant in that it gives an example of something we could know but don’t need to know.

But the question was how is this relevant to this discussion. Can you answer the question?

 

[christcnection1]

And the Catholic may well far part way there since he is carrying so much excess baggage.

On the journey to heaven I’ll take every grace I can get. (It would be foolish to reject those graces.)

The goal is perfect sanctity (not imputed righteousness) as He calls all His children to be. Any detour is not a direct road to the heart of Christ. This is why He has given us Sacred Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium.

The Bible clearly teaches apostolic succession and Tradition; therefore, if God meant for Sola Scriptura to be true, He was only encouraging “excess baggage” by fostering supposed false traditions.

This of course was not God’s intention. He has given us these truths for the benefit of our souls. This is also why the holiest and most dedicated Christians were Catholic Saints (and perhaps Eastern Orthodox Saints too).

In no way am I degrading a Protestant’s desire to follow the Lord. Their intentions are pure and sincere! However, the graces obtained through the Catholic Church are not ordinarily there.

The adventure requires the necessary equipment, because the prize leads us to perfect union with Jesus Christ. It is through the graces He merited for us on the cross, that He desires to apply the graces of the Sacraments to our souls.

No, our Lord in His love did not want us to go by the Bible alone! If God allowed His people to want in a cloud of theological blindness for 1,500, we neither worship a God of compassion nor mercy.

If the Bible said it was the final and sole rule of faith you would have a point. If the early Church believed the Bible alone was the final and sole rule of faith you have a point. If the Bible was canonized by the death of the last apostle, I could also buy into this argument.

If Sola Scriptura is true, God made is extraordinarily difficult to embrace the concept.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

So he also says that it contains what is needed and I said that you can get the truth from fallible sources.

No. You are misrepresenting what he said. C Thomas said the Bible is the infallible source for doctrine.

DOCTRINE

You said that the Bible is the infallible source for Salvation.

SALVATION

You are not saying the same thing as C Thomas is saying at all.

Unless you are saying that doctrine and salvation are the same thing? If you are saying this, then please explain how doctrine is the same thing as Salvation.

Then you said that Sola Scripture covers ‘teaching from the Bible.’ Presumably now you are admitting that ‘teaching from the Bible’ is a fallible source of Salvation?

So, according to you, the Bible is the infallible source of Salvation and ‘teaching from the Bible’ is a fallible source of Salvation. Right?

Why would people listen to an fallible source if they could listen to an infallible source?

Oh! Maybe they can’t read? So I guess people who can’t read get the fallible source and people who can read get the infallible source? You were saying in another thread that Sola Scriptura is not elitist?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Other traditions can be the liturgy used to the extent it is not dictated by Scripture as the formula for baptism is, clerical dress and the use of music in worship.

Ani Ibi:

Since this is not a sentence, I am not going to attempt to interpret it. If you wish to rewrite it so that it is a sentence that might be helpful to the discussion. Thank you.

SyCarl:

It is in fact a sentence if you read it properly. It gives liturgy, clerical dress and the use of music as examples of other traditions.

What I am saying – once again – is that saying so does not make it so.

Mr Carl, do you really believe that if you say something is true it automatically is true? Do you not realize that this is ‘magical’ thinking? Not logic? And why oh why do lines of reasoning as proof rarely follow your statements?

This is what I got from what you wrote:

" ‘Other traditions’ can include the liturgy; however, they are not dictated by Scripture as the formula for baptism is."

Is that the first part of what you trying to say but didn’t?

“clerical dress and the use of music in worship.”

As for this second part: it is an unconnected sentence fragment.

Did you mean:

" ‘Other traditions’ can include the liturgy; however, they are not dictated by Scripture as the formulae for baptism, clerical dress, and the use of music in worship are."

 

[SyCarl]

No. You are misrepresenting what he said. C Thomas said the Bible is the infallible source for doctrine.

You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me. He said:

Originally Posted by CThomas View Post
The Bible is the ultimate infallible source of what you need to be justified.

Justification = salvation

It useless to try to discuss something when you see only what you want to see, pick out of post only what suits you and are incapable of understanding something you don’t agree with.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

**The Bible is the ultimate infallible source of what you need to be justified. **

But you can get the relevant information through some fallible source and be just as saved. If a friend tells you the relevant information you need to come to a saving faith in Christ and you respond to it, the information has been transmitted to you fallibly. But nonetheless, it can be enough if it produces a saving faith. There is no requirement that a saving faith be acquired through an infallible source. Sola scriptura becomes very important on this view, though, where the question is how to judge fallible claims about doctrine. If sola scriptura is correct, then we ultimately need to weigh any extra-biblical claims about doctrine to see if they conform to scripture. If they violate scripture, they must cannot be accepted. So scripture is the ultimate authority, although it does not follow that anybody needs to read it [scripture] to be saved.CThomas

But this is what he agreed to in the course of discussion (link):
Ani Ibi:

• Infallible doctrine can only come from Scripture (Sola Scriptura).
• Solo Fides is not relevant to this consideration (thread specific).
• Saving faith can come from a variety of sources.

SyCarl:

So we are both right since we are saying the same things.

Saying the same thing as someone else does not make you right. In any case, as I have demonstrated, you are not saying the same thing as C Thomas.

 

[SyCarl]

But this is what he agreed to in the course of discussion (link):

Saying the same thing as someone else does not make you right. In any case, as I have demonstrated, you are not saying the same thing as C Thomas.

It matters little that he agreed with your 3 line summary. He said what I quoted. I agree he also said that it is the only source of infallible doctrine. The two statements are not mutually exclusive and are both true.

Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine.
Scripture also contains everything that is needed for salvation (justification).

I disagree with you and you disagree with me. I will leave it at that.