Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[haparker321]

Of course Sola Scriptura didn’t exist before then (neither did ‘Sola Fide’, I might add).

But this is an assertion that you have yet to prove.

I can show you NUMEROUS quotes from the earliest saints which endorse the authority of the oral Tradition (which the Bible also EXPLICITLY supports).

Like I said in previous threads, the mentioning of tradition in scripture and the ECF’s don’t equal or amount to the same definition that Catholics put forth. What the church means by tradition is this:

[SIGN]The words, doctrines, and beliefs that are neither found in history nor scripture that ought to be counted as equally authoritative; the fact that they are absent in some or all of these writings only mean that the doctrine ‘wasn’t fully developed’ until later.[/SIGN]

Now here are the key problems in this matter of definition:

• Tradition is not defined in the same manner as the Fathers express it.
• Tradition is not defined in the same manner as the Scriptures express it.
• Tradition is not defined (by either the Fathers or the Scriptures) as beliefs not bound to the Scriptures.
• **Tradition is not defined (by either the Fathers or the Scriptures) as beliefs contained outside of the Scriptures. **
• **Tradition is not defined (by either the Fathers or the Scriptures) as beliefs that are non-derivative from the scriptural norm. **
• **Tradition is not defined (by either the Fathers or the Scriptures) as an additional source of the Word of God (after the close of the canon). **

My problem with understanding tradition is that it’s not the same definition put forth by the Scriptures or the Early Church. When you can point out by either the Scriptural or Historical quotes that show how tradition was defined (as one of the points mentioned above), then I could say “You’re right.” But most of these challenges are problematic for most Catholics, specifically, the Converts.

Parker

 

[UnityofTrinity]

No, the Bible IS the Word of God.

Which isn’t denied, but we are saying the Church must submit to Scriptural command.

So how did you come to the conclusion of Rome being ‘the one and true church’? Did you have one true infallible interpreter to help you with the understanding or did you use yourself to agree?

Parker

Because Jesus Himself established the Church as He said in Matthew. Because we have 2000 years of history, with hundreds of saints and church fathers to help us understand Scripture. If I to say I believe in Scripture, yet does not obey it, I am lying to myself

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Sola Scriptura by its own standard fail itself where its followers fail to show where it is in Scripturr

 

[haparker321]

How? You mean they looked toward a book that was compiled hundreds of years after them? If the Church looked for something to jusfify their doctrine, that mean you agree that Scripture and traditions must go together.

The canon was complete by the time the Church got to writing and expounding their thoughts. Even if the NT wasn’t complete, the ECF’s used the OT (which was).

Parker

 

[haparker321]

Parker, you have this backwards. The Church teaches the faith that was handed down verbally by Jesus to the apostles. What we now define as New Testament scripture is actually the Church documenting what it teaches. The Church was commissioned to spread the gospel and to administer the sacraments (Matthew 28: 18-20) and from that authority came scriptures. When you take the position that you believe the Bible but not the way the Catholic Church teaches it, you are taking the peculiar position of not believing the author’s words unless they are written down. And lets dispence with your likely objection that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the source of the scriptures: of course they were. But they promulgated this through the Catholic Church for a reason: because the truth was entrusted to it from the day of Pentacost onward. When you diverge from what the Catholic Church teaches, you are diverging from the truth.

Paul,

For starters, what do you mean by faith? Do you mean doctrine or means of Salvation? The Church would have nothing to function on if the Scriptures did not come first because there would be nothing from them to preach on. I think this is the major disagreement here.

Parker

 

[UnityofTrinity]

The canon was complete by the time the Church got to writing and expounding their thoughts. Even if the NT wasn’t complete, the ECF’s used the OT (which was).

Parker

Wrong, the Church began to compiled Holy Scripture at 397 AD, before that, Christians used plenty of writings, letters. Some sees the Book of Enoch as divinely inspired. However, why don’t we see the Book of Enoch in the Bible? St.Jude used it in His writing as if it was Scripture, however, we don’t acknowledge it as inspired by God don’t we?

Another thing is that Christians did not always have Bible. The Bible was limited for clergy only, so how did “true Christians” read the Bible and determine for themselves? Sola Scriptura by this point became silly

 

[UnityofTrinity]

An another obvious question: “Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?”

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Paul,

For starters, what do you mean by faith? Do you mean doctrine or means of Salvation? The Church would have nothing to function on if the Scriptures did not come first because there would be nothing from them to preach on. I think this is the major disagreement here.

Parker

But Gospel was not written much later after Christ died, and Scripture was not always available, especially for the hidden Christians. Saying that Scripture came first is committing historical errors.

 

[babylonsfalling]

As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   Good grief dud…Scripture specifically CALLS for holding to tradition.
   If you believe in Scripture, then what more than Scripture itself do you need to finally admit that tradition is okay.
   You CALL for Sola Scripture in one breath and ignore Scripture in the next.
   
   Didja think no one noticed?
   

   2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

   Again…it TELLS US IN THE BIBLE that tradition is okay.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
The Bible is a set of documents that contains an account of the Word of God

Parker, have you read John 1?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The word of God is Jesus Christ. It is not the Bible. Surely, you understand that the Bible, divinely inspired as it was, is not a synonym for Jesus Christ. His essence is much more than what is contained in the Bible. Protestants try to equate the two - suggesting that everything needed for salvation can be found in the bible. Well it is not true. You can not get the sacraments from the Bible. It can describe them, but it can not dispense them. This is why you need the Catholic Church…

Quote:
Jesus gave us the Church, the Holy Spirit, and appointed leaders to guide us (all of which is documented in the Bible).

Parker, this is a fairly ridiculous thing to say. The church gave us the scriptures and thus necessarily predated them. How could it submit to scriptural command before the scriptures existed? And furthermore, a book never has authority over its author. That said, the church teaches eternal truths. Since those don’'t change, the Chruch will stay in sync with what it has documented. If you think its not doing so, its simply a matter of you interpreting scripture in a faulty way.

Quote:
“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” - 2 Peter 1:20

So, Parker, now we have really reached the most basic question of the Reformation . Why do we believe the Catholic Church has authority to teach and you do not? God gave us both the gift of reason and we use it.

Anyone who is educated in these matters knows that the Catholic Church can and does demonstrate continuity of leadership and doctrine back to St. Peter and the Apostles.

There are only two plausible arguments agains the Catholic Church’s claims to authority.

1. That the Catholic Church apostasized. This is the claim put forward by Joseph Smith and the Mormons. However, they have never been able to show the actual events of this alleged apostasy, nor can they show what the apostasy entailed, or explain why Jesus wasnt true to his word that the church founded on St. Peter would prevail against the gates of Hell (Matthew 16: 16-19)
2. That the Catholic Church never was the one true church. This is even more ridiculous because there is no other alternative.

So Parker, what is YOUR reason to believe that the Catholic Church is not the one true church? And further, what is YOUR argument in favor of HAPARKER Ministries being the one true church?

 

[paul_c]

Paul,

For starters, what do you mean by faith? Do you mean doctrine or means of Salvation? The Church would have nothing to function on if the Scriptures did not come first because there would be nothing from them to preach on. I think this is the major disagreement here.

Parker

Come on Parker, this is basic. The church preaches what it has WITNESSED. The bible documents this. YOU could not function without scripture because YOU have no apostolic succession to teach you the truths about the faith and the means of salvation, which by the way, include the sacraments which the Church administers for Jesus.

 

[fbl9]

Paul,

For starters, what do you mean by faith? Do you mean doctrine or means of Salvation? The Church would have nothing to function on if the Scriptures did not come first because there would be nothing from them to preach on. I think this is the major disagreement here.

Parker

What did Christ tell the apostles after His resserection? Was it
a) go and preach
b) go write a book and hand it out.

 

[guanophore]

Can't you see the problem in the question you're asking?

No, I honestly don’t. We both agree that the Word of God is self authenticating, because it is from God.

However, Catholics believe that the Word of God exists in Sacred Tradition, and in the Sacred Scriptures, while you say the Word of God is only in the Scriptures.

Be that as it may, how are we to know what is the Word of God, and what is not? There is no inspired table of contents from the Scriptures. There is no index, list of authors, and some of the documents don’t even have a name attached to them.

Then we have the problem faced by the Church that produced the canon - there were 400+ documents floating around at the time, all claiming to be the inspired Word of God. How do we know that the Letter of Barnabas and the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas don’t belong in the NT?

  If you affirm that something from God is self-authenticating, then your question "what came from God?" can't arise in the first place.

Well, ok. I see that this course confuses you, and I see that there are many others on the thread that have laid out the issue much better than I, so I will not pursue this. The point is, you have no divine revelation in the Bible of what books belong in the Bible.

… as soon as you ask, “what came from God?”

I know this is a very inconvenient question for you, Miguel. And I have had discourse with some Reformed Christians here at CAF that just avoid dealing with it entirely. They say “the doctrine of SS assumes a canon”, which is a very convenient, if shallow, dodge.

This strongly suggests that, at the end of the day, you really don’t believe in self-authenticating truth, but rather only the truth that you have been told to believe, along with the belief that the institution that told you this truth is at least trustworthy, if not infallible.

I believe the Truth that God has revealed about Himsel. That revelation is not confined to the Scriptures. However, the same question remains. How do I know what came from God? For me, this is not a problem, since I accept the procedure put in place by Him for me to know. You, however, reject His promise to guide the Church into “all Truth”, so you are left without a way to know, except if you can find it in the pages of Scripture. Unfortunately for you, not everything is contained in those pages, including which pages they should be.

But where did you get that idea from? Oh–that’s right–from the very same institution. Thus you believe the Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church tells you that’s what you’re supposed to believe.

I am sure it seems that way to you, Miguel, because you don’t really believe that Jesus is the Head of His Church. You seem to believe in some sort of truncated idea of “church” as “the body of believers here on earth”. This headless body then has no chief shepherd, so all must do what they believe is right in their own eyes.

For Catholics, the powerful Jesus we see in the book of Revelation has not turned aside, gotten a 1500 year flu (too sick to care), or become weak or unconcerned. He is still leading and guiding His One Body, the Church, just as he said He would do.

 

[guanophore]

Let me pose this question, if an atheist is shipwrecked on an island alone with a Bible could they learn what they need to be saved?

According to the Bible, they can learn what they need to be saved from their own conscience.

So, does the person shiprecked on an island alone WITHOUT a bible have a chance to be saved?

 

[EricFilmer]

No, the Bible IS the Word of God.

This is a preposterous statement!

Consider this: it is possible for a Bible to be burned and reduced to a pile of ashes, effectively destroying it. But let me ask you, is it possible for the Word of God to be burned and reduced to ashes?
Of course not! Therefore, the Bible conveys the Word of God, but is not, in and of itself, the Word of God.

Parker,

I’m still waiting on some answers from you. More specifically…

I am still waiting for you to defend your OP’s Bible citations against my refutation of them being used to support Sola Scriptura, as presented in Post #29 & Post #30.
You gave me the impression (in Post #122) that you intended to do this, and yet that was 5 days ago (and it is also worth pointing out that it has been 17 days since I presented Posts 29 & 30)

And I am also waiting for you to reply to the question I asked you concerning Marian devotion in Post 130. That was likewise 5 days ago.

And I remind you that I am still waiting for you to complete my Book of Enoch challenge which I originally presented 16 days ago and reiterated in Post 149. Here it is again, as it stands from the Post #149 version:

**Parker,
In light of all that has been said, the Book of Enoch Challenge has evolved into the below outlined task for you:

1. Use hermeneutics to explain why the Book of Enoch should not** be in the Old Testament Canon.
2. Your use of hermeneutics must still be in keeping with your definition of Sola Scriptura, as seen in the OP. In other words, such hermeneutics must “be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures.” If you attempt to defend your position with an argument that is not sufficiently derived from the Scriptures, then by that very action you demonstrate that Scripture does not contain “everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs”. In other words, you contradict your own statement concerning Scriptures found in the OP.
3. And just to give you the “heads up,” one of the ways I will double-check the validity of your process will be to use it to examine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In other words, if the process you use to declare the Book of Enoch to not be inspired can also be used to declare the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity to not be inspired, then your process is invalid.
4. Moreover, I will double-check the process you use to determine that a book in the Bible is inspired by using it to examine certain Marian doctrines. In other words, if your method for proving that the books in the Bible are, indeed, inspired can be used to show that certain Marian doctrines are also inspired, then this demonstrates that you have a double-standard (assuming that you reject the validity of the Marian doctrines).

 

[guanophore]

No, the Bible **IS** the Word of God.

Which isn’t denied, but we are saying the Church must submit to Scriptural command.

This is never a problem for Catholics, because we know that there is never a contradiction between what the Church teaches, and what is in Scripture. They both came from the same Source, so by nature, are completely consistent.

It is a problem for those who do not accept that the HS has infallibly preserved the doctrines of the Apostles in the Church, though, because it appears to them as though there are contradictions that do not exist.

So how did you come to the conclusion of Rome being ‘the one and true church’? Did you have one true infallible interpreter to help you with the understanding or did you use yourself to agree?

I would dispute the use of the word “Rome” here, as the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. But it is true that God has given His external witness to the One Church He founded, as is recorded in the NT. He has given her His very great and precious promises that He would be with her until the end of the age.

 

[JonNC]

=Cat Herder;7894454]
I was a Lutheran so I know that the Lutheran definition of SS is quite different from that used in the rest of the Protestant world. At least for a Confessional Lutheran, the model for authority is basically the same as that of the Catholic Church except that rank labels are assigned to Scripture, (Lutheran) tradition and (Lutheran) magisterium. The Catholic Church does not assign rank labels; the three sources of authority are coequal and none of them can contradict the other.

Notice the last part: none of them can contradict the other.
The challenge I put to you is to explain how the Lutheran position on authority is functionally any different than the Catholic position of authority.

Other than what you said above, perhaps most importantly the power and primacy of the Pope of Rome. As you know, Lutherans accept the Council of Nicea, and respect the position of the Bishop of Rome in the west. What we do not accept is universal jusrisdiction, as there is no evidence of it in the early, undivided Church. So, functionally, there is a good difference in polity, as well.

Let’s say that a Fundamentalist walks up to you and says your church is not reformed enough because the Lutheran confessions contradict the Bible. What would your answer be? Probably that you believe that it would be impossible for the Lutheran confessions to contradict the Bible because the Bible is a check on the confessions.

It sounds circular, but you’re probably right. Plus we would point to the early Church and ECF’s, for example, when talking about the Eucharist.

Well, there are no Catholic doctrines that contradict the Bible and it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to contradict the Bible because the Holy Spirit would not allow it. Isn’t that functionally the same as the Lutheran position? (If so then the main difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism is not “sola scriptura” but rather whose tradition you use–including whose biblical canon.)

Well, first, I’ve asked on occasion what Catholic doctrines are derived strictly from the deuterocanon, and there isn’t much, but I understand your point.
On the rest, I don’t thik the Lutheran reformers or current day Lutherans would claim infallibility of, say, the Confessions, based on the protection of the Holy Spirit. Generally, I would say, otherwise, that what you say has merit; our difference is in how our communions practice hermeunetics: scripture and Tradition and the Magisterium as coequals, or scripture as the final norm supported by tradition.

I might add that, personally, I don’t believe that these two necessarily lead us to different places. This is where the Holy Spirit can guide us.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Of course it was, the point here is that they always looked to Scripture to justify the doctrines they teach.

Yes, this is a point in which we are in agreement. What we don’t agree upon are the MEANING of those Scriptures. Catholics interpret them in accordance with the faith that was handed down to us form the Apostles. You interpret them through the lens of the Reformaiton, having departed from the sacred Tradition.

The problem is that you want Scriptures to provide something they never claimed.

This is not a problem for Catholics, since Catholics do not attempt to force the Scriptures into a role they were never meant to have. However, for those who claim that the Scriptures have such a role as a final arbitor, it would seem that they should testify about themselves as such, don’t you think? Or, at the very least, not testify to the opposite.

The gist of SS is this: That Scripture be the means the church uses to justify its doctrinal beliefs and submit to its plain commands.

Parker

I think you are not even listening to yourself, Parker.

“The Scriptures is the means by which the church uses to submit to its plain demands”.

Talk about circular thinking!

Besides, the problem has been since the beginning of Christendom, what are the “plain demands”?

Some say baptism includes water, some say not.
Some say we are to eat the Body and Blood, and some says this has nothing to do with
bread and wine.
Some say a bishop MUST be married, some say not. etc. etc.

The problem is that many things are not “plain”.

But this is an assertion that you have yet to prove.

If you cannot accept the evidence that exists in the NT, it seems that it is unlikely that you will ever be pursuaded. The Apostles preached the Word of God, and it was held in the Church as authoritative. The Word of God that was deposited into the Church did not vanish just because someof it was written down.

Like I said in previous threads, the mentioning of tradition in scripture and the ECF’s don’t equal or amount to the same definition that Catholics put forth. What the church means by tradition is this:

[SIGN]The words, doctrines, and beliefs that are neither found in history nor scripture that ought to be counted as equally authoritative; the fact that they are absent in some or all of these writings only mean that the doctrine ‘wasn’t fully developed’ until later.[/SIGN]

No, Parker. You debunking a theory you concocted by yourself that is not held or believed by Catholics will not get you anywhere here on CAF. Try working with the definition that the Catholic Church believes about Sacred Tradition,and then you can set about debunking that, ok? What you have demonstrated here is that you can create a strawman, and shoot arrows into it.

Now here are the key problems in this matter of definition:…

Yes, I should think so! Now that you recognize that, why not use an actual definition? You have persuaded us that you have a very vivid imagination, though.

 My problem with understanding tradition is that it's not the same definition put forth by the Scriptures or the Early Church. When you can point out by either the Scriptural or Historical quotes that show how tradition was defined (as one of the points mentioned above), then I could say "You're right." But most of these challenges are problematic for most Catholics, specifically, the Converts.

Parker

It seems to me that, if you are unwilling to dialogue with us about what the Church states she believes and teaches with regard to Sacred Tradition, then there is not much to be said. You can create fantasies about it all day long, then refute them, if it pleases you.

 

[guanophore]

The canon was complete by the time the Church got to writing and expounding their thoughts. Even if the NT wasn’t complete, the ECF’s used the OT (which was).

Parker

Yes, the Early Church used the Alexandrian Septuagint, which was a well defined canon.

However, the NT IS the Church writing and expounding thoughts!

I think you are meaning to say that Scripture is Scripture as soon as it was penned - not that the collection was completed when it was penned, or that every one knew which writings were scripture, and which were not.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
You are very reasonable in your apologetics. However, I must take issue with the concept that scripture is the final norm. The reason for my objection is that the bible is not self interpreting- two reasonable people can and do come to different conclusions from the same reading of scripture. This is evident to all. Therefore, we must rely on an infallible authority - the magesterium of the Catholic Church - to make the final call on anything having to do with Faith, morals and salvation. If you can not accept the Catholic Church as the final authority, then you must propose a credible alterative- the Bible itself can not be that authority because it is incapable of resolvig disputes.

Hi Paul,
You are always complimentary toward me, and I thank you for that. You know, I will accept the Magisterium making the final call if and when Orthodoxy does. This comes down to which Church, that practices Tradition and scripture, has that guidance of the Holy Spirit. Both claim it. Do both have it? My biggest disagreement with Rome is related to ecclesiology. Solve this, and I’m in RCIA the next day. But even this I view as human tradition.

Jon