K
- Status
Hi Gregg,
seeing you here lends to my hope that God has answered the prayers of us all that your situation is improving.
Jon
seeing you here lends to my hope that God has answered the prayers of us all that your situation is improving.
Actually, my understanding of sola scriptura is that it is intended to prevent this, not accomodate it.
A good question. For example, whose interpretation of the role of the Pope, as expressed in Nicea canon 6, is correct? It seems this can’t even be agreed upon by those who reject sola scriptura.
Well, its a false delemma in that you and I agree that the word of God must agree with the Word of God. Personally, in this scenario, I would accept whatever Christ said, as human hermeuteics, regardless of how it is practiced by individual communions, would be irrelevent.
Jon
po18guy
Well-known member
“Let scripture interpret scripture” is the hue and cry. But, its fruits are division, rather than unity. We know them by their fruits.
The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.
H
haparker321
Guest
The essential question would run something like, ‘What are the marks of the true church/Christian?’. However, just because someone falsely uses Scripture does not make Scripture insufficient.
But the Catholic Church is no different; it’s claiming that God gave them the authority to read the Scriptures right. If you don’t believe what they say, it’s because you’re not guided by God. However, you got at least three other groups telling us the same thing.
Scriptural tradition is whatever Scriptures define them as. I believe that if tradition exists, it ought to have an adequate basis in the word of God.
I would agree with you, but here’s the thing: you think whatever is orally transmitted does not have to be necessarily found in the Scriptures.
Parker
H
haparker321
Guest
Because you’re assuming Sola Scriptura is not biblical from the start.
We can reach conclusions about the sufficiency of Scripture via implication because its practicality in all circumstances and look at what is said about it and how one uses it.
Again, these aren’t vague Bible passages that we’re using here. The Scriptures are quite clear that they can be used (on its own) to defend falsehood. What else was Jesus using when he rebuked Satan?
There’s no dodging here whatsoever; this is a re-hash of the previous argument. You’re wanting to say something like this: SS is non-biblical because we need an explicit command to show that Scriptures are enough.The only difference with that your second assertion assumes we need to have an infallible interpreter.
But you have failed to demonstrate this.
Still you’re begging the question because you’re assuming SS was virtually non-existent which you have not proven.
Yet we have found a total of six presumptuous statements. Here’s the list:
- Sola Scriptura was a concept that was practically non-existent.
- Sola Scriptura is not self-evident.
- The Jews never practiced Sola Scriptura.
- Sola Scriptura is not taught by the Scriptures.
- We need an outside source to understand the Scriptures.
- Sola Scriptura leads anyone to heresy (e.g. the Saducees).
I didn’t set anything up; you made those implications. All I did here was take your statements and ask an honest question.
Parker
H
haparker321
Guest
You’re arguing in a circle.
But you haven’t proven it’s the Magisterium that gets the credit. Amazing! :bigyikes:
I don’t think the book of Enoch is inspired because Jude is merely quoting it to bring up a point. Just because someone quotes a pagan source does not make the pagan book inspired. Now, of course when Jude quotes a non-inspired source, that does not prove the need for divine tradition.
But the Magisterium never compiled the Old Testament in the first place. The canon was closed.
Parker
H
haparker321
Guest
But the OT was generally recognized prior to the councils; your assertion here is false.
Ahhh…the Golden Index syndrome. So what standard did the Magisterium used that Protestants couldn’t use? Did the Holy Spirit appear with the sacred list?
And whose making that interpretation? The Church!
Wow, that’s quite a logical leap.
We use historical references like Christian/Non-Christian/Archaeological evidences to make an adequate judgment.
Lutherans believe there’s an efficacy of Baptism once the person becomes baptized. So far, this is the only group that says that.
Parker
H
haparker321
Guest
And you have to prove (by scripture or history) that oral tradition has been meant to include the definition as put forth by the church that some of these ‘traditions’ that are spoken orally cannot be, should not be, and does not necessarily have to be traced back to the Scriptures. In many ways, some of these teachings fall into one or more of the categorical problems as mentioned above.
Parker
H
haparker321
Guest
Yet, ironically you have not answered my objections in my previous email.
Parker
E
EricFilmer
Guest
I’m not assuming anything - Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. And if Sola Scriptura was in the Bible you obviously would have cited it by now! I’m starting to wonder if you’re just playing games here. You titled this thread, “Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You betcha!” so I say, “Prove it!”
You have yet to present a passage from the Bible that actually implies Sola Scriptura. Moreover, I have already demonstrated that the diversity of doctrine among adherents of Sola Scriptura shows that it is far from allowing “practicality in all circumstances.” For example, consider once again the link I provided earlier containing the debate over the necessity of water baptism among adherents of Sola Scriptura.
How about a book/chapter/verse for these clear Bible passages?
Satan used Scripture to tempt Jesus, and Jesus in turn used Scripture to rebuke Satan. Therefore, this shows that Satan’s understanding and application of Scripture was erroneous. Jesus also rebuked Satan with non-Scriptural words, such as Matthew 16:23. Moreover, if Jesus actually believed in Sola Scriptura why didn’t he simply teach it?
No, I’m wanting to see a rebuttal against what I actually addressed. Sola Scriptura is non-biblical because it is neither explicitly nor implicitly found in the Bible.
Evidence for it not being explicitly taught in the Bible: No verse in the Bible states the definition of Sola Scriptura from your OP.
Evidence for it not being implicitly taught in the Bible: You have not been able to cite any passages which do the job, and throughout the collective 4000 year history of Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy Sola Scriptura was never gleaned from Scripture nor taught.
Have I? Adherents of Sola Scriptura hold out the teaching of Sola Scriptura to be the rule by which the validity of a proposed Christian doctrine is measured. If the proposed doctrine is not sufficiently taught in the Bible, then it cannot be considered valid. Sola Scriptura is not sufficiently taught in the Bible, therefore it cannot be considered valid. It fails its own test, and therefore it contains an inherent paradox, because it basically contradicts itself. A proposition that is self-contradictory cannot be true.
The burden of proof is upon you. Show me where the statement you made in the OP was officially taught as doctrine prior to the Protestant Reformation.
(Continued in my next post)
E
EricFilmer
Guest
(Continued…)
Sola Scriptura was a concept that was practically non-existent.
Proof: SS is not taught in the Catholic Catechism, as can be demonstrated with the search engine in this link.
Moreover, there is no mention of SS in Orthodox catechisms. For example:
gocanada.org/catechism/catech.htm
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/catechism.html
And finally, because Catholicism and all the various Orthodox Churches officially teach that God’s revelation comes through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, they obviously do not teach Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is not self-evident.
Proof: There are conflicting definitions of Sola Scriptura used by adherents of Sola Scriptura. For example, your definition of Sola Scriptura from the OP is not Martin Luther’s. Moreover, SS cannot be considered self-evident for the fact that throughout the collective 4000-year history of Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy SS was never gleaned from Scripture nor taught.
**The Jews never practiced Sola Scriptura. **
Proof: At the time of Jesus, the majority of the Jews used the Traditions of the Elders to interpret the Torah, and this fact is addressed in the gospels. This fact plus the existence of the Talmud demonstrates that the Jews never practiced Sola Scriptura.
Incidentally, I visited the Judaism 101 and came up with several SS oriented terms to plug into its search engine (“Sola Scriptura”, “Scripture Alone”, “Torah Alone,” Scripture Only," “Bible Alone”, etc.). Each entry resulted in zero hits.
I did, however, come across this interesting definition for what is called the “Oral Torah”:
Oral Torah (TOH-ruh): Jewish teachings explaining and elaborating on the Written Torah, handed down orally until the 2d century C.E., when they began to be written down in what became the Talmud.
Doesn’t sound like a bunch of adherents to Sola Scriptura, now does it?
Sola Scriptura is not taught by the Scriptures.
Proof: The definition you made in your OP does not appear in the Bible, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Moreover, as I have said before, if it did appear in the Bible (one way or another) you obviously would have cited the passages by now.
We need an outside source to understand the Scriptures.
Proof: The Scriptures do not tell us what books belong in the Bible. The table of contents for both the Old and New Testament was determined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. In order to practice Sola Scriptura, one first needs to ask the question: “What are the Scriptures that I should be ‘sola’ about?” In other words, “What is and is not Scripture among the hundreds of ancient writings whose text claims divine origin?” To answer that question, all Christians rely on an outside source: the pronouncement of the councils I mentioned.
Sola Scriptura leads anyone to heresy (e.g. the Saducees)
I never used the word heresy. I simply pointed out that the Saducees’ insistence on “Torah only” fostered a false limitation on God’s revelation. For example, they did not accept the books of the prophets or the wisdom books of the Old Testament to be divinely inspired. Do you disagree?
And now that I have cleared all this up, maybe you will finally get around to addressing the actual content of my objections. As far as I am concerned, you are still dodging.
I find it incredible that you can present this summary of my statements and claim that they require a “logical leap of faith”. But just so you’ll know that I am not dodging anything:
Sola Scriptura was a concept that was practically non-existent.
Proof: SS is not taught in the Catholic Catechism, as can be demonstrated with the search engine in this link.
Moreover, there is no mention of SS in Orthodox catechisms. For example:
gocanada.org/catechism/catech.htm
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/catechism.html
And finally, because Catholicism and all the various Orthodox Churches officially teach that God’s revelation comes through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, they obviously do not teach Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is not self-evident.
Proof: There are conflicting definitions of Sola Scriptura used by adherents of Sola Scriptura. For example, your definition of Sola Scriptura from the OP is not Martin Luther’s. Moreover, SS cannot be considered self-evident for the fact that throughout the collective 4000-year history of Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy SS was never gleaned from Scripture nor taught.
**The Jews never practiced Sola Scriptura. **
Proof: At the time of Jesus, the majority of the Jews used the Traditions of the Elders to interpret the Torah, and this fact is addressed in the gospels. This fact plus the existence of the Talmud demonstrates that the Jews never practiced Sola Scriptura.
Incidentally, I visited the Judaism 101 and came up with several SS oriented terms to plug into its search engine (“Sola Scriptura”, “Scripture Alone”, “Torah Alone,” Scripture Only," “Bible Alone”, etc.). Each entry resulted in zero hits.
I did, however, come across this interesting definition for what is called the “Oral Torah”:
Oral Torah (TOH-ruh): Jewish teachings explaining and elaborating on the Written Torah, handed down orally until the 2d century C.E., when they began to be written down in what became the Talmud.
Doesn’t sound like a bunch of adherents to Sola Scriptura, now does it?
Sola Scriptura is not taught by the Scriptures.
Proof: The definition you made in your OP does not appear in the Bible, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Moreover, as I have said before, if it did appear in the Bible (one way or another) you obviously would have cited the passages by now.
We need an outside source to understand the Scriptures.
Proof: The Scriptures do not tell us what books belong in the Bible. The table of contents for both the Old and New Testament was determined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. In order to practice Sola Scriptura, one first needs to ask the question: “What are the Scriptures that I should be ‘sola’ about?” In other words, “What is and is not Scripture among the hundreds of ancient writings whose text claims divine origin?” To answer that question, all Christians rely on an outside source: the pronouncement of the councils I mentioned.
Sola Scriptura leads anyone to heresy (e.g. the Saducees)
I never used the word heresy. I simply pointed out that the Saducees’ insistence on “Torah only” fostered a false limitation on God’s revelation. For example, they did not accept the books of the prophets or the wisdom books of the Old Testament to be divinely inspired. Do you disagree?
And now that I have cleared all this up, maybe you will finally get around to addressing the actual content of my objections. As far as I am concerned, you are still dodging.
I challenge you to present a quote from me where I either stated or implied that the 2000 year histories of Catholicism and Orthodoxy signifies that they are “correct churches.”
E
EricFilmer
Guest
I claim that there is not a pink elephant in my room because when I look around I see no pink elephant. Is this “arguing in a circle?” No. I make the same critique concerning Sola Scriptura - I have read the Bible and it is not in there. Moreover, you continually dodge citing an actual Bible passage that demonstrates SS.
Even Protestant books on the history of the Bible credit the Councils of Hippo & Carthage with discerning the canons for the Bible.
Who said the Book of Enoch was pagan? It is purportedly written by Enoch of the Book of Genesis who “walked with God”. That’s certainly not a description of a pagan. So if you denounce the Book of Enoch as a pagan book then prove it to be so. And how do you know that Jude is “merely quoting it to bring up a point”? Jude said that this was the same Enoch of Genesis and that this quote was actual prophecy.
Really? Closed by whom? The Jews hadn’t closed it at the time of Christ. Many considered texts found in what we call today the Pseudepigrapha to be inspired. Moreover, the Deuterocanon was accepted as part of the Old Testament during the late Old Testament period. When the Jews finally came up with their own canon for the Old Testament around the late first century, they discarded the Deuterocanon, but the ancient Christians continued using it.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
No, the OT was not generally recognized prior to the councils. Once again, there were the many books contained in what we call today the Pseudepigrapha, and there were debates over the Deuterocanon.
Yes, in a manner-of-speaking the Holy Spirit appeared with a sacred list, in the sense that the Magisterium, through a guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit, discerned the index. No Protestants believe that they have such a guaranteed guidance, so by that definition any canons created by Protestants is fallible.
Yeah? So? And it is what all Christians believed for the first thousand years of Christianity.
Then give me a straight answer to my Book of Enoch challenge and prove me wrong. Simply saying that it is “pagan” without demonstrating it to be so doesn’t cut it. And besides, did you ever research the history of the Bible and all the hundreds of ancient texts that claim divine origin and determine for yourself which are and are not truly inspired? Or did you take it upon faith that the books contained in your Bible ought to be there? If it is the latter, then you placed your faith in a pronouncement of the Magisterium even if you did not realize that the Magisterium was behind the formulation of the canons.
I challenge you to present the Christian/Non-Christian/Archaeological evidence that clearly demonstrates ONE verse in the Bible being what is found in the original text. Note that this is all I’m asking for: do his for just ONE verse in the Bible. Without the original text it is impossible to demonstrate this.
I’m not sure what you mean by “efficacy of Baptism”. But I asked you to tell me who in that linked debate on baptism was right and who was wrong, according to Sola Scriptura. Because all I heard were two sides heavily quoting the Bible but reaching opposite conclusions.
W
William_Pitts
Guest
Parker. Parker. Parker. I and others have answered your posts and given many counter arguments against your suppositions and you have ignored them.
You and your protestant friends have a choice to make.
You can have a holy Church that has the authority to interpret scripture or you can keep your idea of Sola Scriptura where everyone who reads the scriptures can interpret for himself
The second choice leads to confusion and differing interpretations, which results in a great number of denominations with conflicting teachings.
You have a tradition and you have a magisterium. Someone put it this way:
crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2006/09/everybody-submits-to-magisterium.html
Me? I depend on the Church not Ideas of men.
“I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
1 Timothy 3:14-15
You and your protestant friends have a choice to make.
You can have a holy Church that has the authority to interpret scripture or you can keep your idea of Sola Scriptura where everyone who reads the scriptures can interpret for himself
The second choice leads to confusion and differing interpretations, which results in a great number of denominations with conflicting teachings.
You have a tradition and you have a magisterium. Someone put it this way:
crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2006/09/everybody-submits-to-magisterium.html
Me? I depend on the Church not Ideas of men.
“I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
1 Timothy 3:14-15
C
Church_Militant
Guest
And I’m not going to. That discussion was fruitless and pointless.
W
WesleyF
Guest
You tell me. I would like to hear from you!
On this I agree. However, again it begs the question, who decides who is using the scripture falsely and who is using it correctly? How is the church as a whole to know about it?
That in fact shows that scripture by itself is insufficient to tell us who the Church is or what doctrines are right! There is no objective standard to convince another person. You are actually proving my point! A person going by the scriptures alone would have to use his/her own judgment (hopefully guided by the Spirit) to decide that. That’s again “self-authority”, although a person might think he/she is guided by the Spirit in believing a certain doctrine. I have seen many sola scriptura believing Christians debating fiercely with each other on many aspects of doctrine. That itself undermines one of the basic and implicit assumptions in sola scriptura - the perspicuity of scripture.
But I don’t believe that. Do you have an objective basis to convince me? I don’t think you do.
Yes. And what’s my objective basis to convince you - none, because you and I don’t agree on what church is the true church. If you were a Catholic, I would say, “because the church says so.” It goes a step beyond “because the Bible says so”, because that opens the door to the problem of two people disagreeing over what the Bible means. We need an authority outside of scripture to tell us infallibly what the scripture says, but the problem is scripture itself cannot help us identify this authority.
There was a church in Acts 15, in which there could be an objective basis.
“And after there had been much debate,** Peter rose** and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence” (Acts 15:7-12)
After Peter spoke, there was no further debate. The issue was settled. I believe in a church that has the same power to settle debates even today, with the Pope functioning as Peter. Sounds very similar to the Acts 15 church to me. But again, there is no objective way to convince you. I would just invite you to look deep into scripture and history and see if you find the Catholic church is the true church indeed.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Generally, I would agree that we have to prove our BUT…
Actually, read the title of your own thread. We are talking about Sola Scriptura and the implications therein. If this were “Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition” or “Is Sacred Tradition Biblical?” or anything similar, we indeed would have to prove our case. As it turns out, this is not the case. So, I am right; YOU have prove that “word of God” in Scripture means Scripture and Scripture only.
And where does the Catholic Church ever teach that Oral Tradition “cannot, should not, and does not necessarily have to be” traced back to Scriptures? That is a heavy claim there. Save the false answer for a different thread though.
Despite attempts at proving the contrary, there are no errors in Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God (which is written and unwritten). There is no better reason to believe this than “I trust God.” This is why I know this is a fact. As for proving it, I can, but save it for another thread, or perhaps e-mail.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
ish… When I cancelled my phone service, the date the service stops is May 14th. So, I am still alive and kicking! Haha… Anyway, shall we?
True, but this leads to another question: How are you so sure your understanding is correct? You are fallible. How are you to say that Jesus’ body and the bread are BOTH there (which I assume you believe as a Lutheran, but please correct any error) to a Baptist using Scripture when they can easily counter it with a symbolic interpretation of the same exact passage?
Point taken. I have not a clue what that is though. I would need to read it through to ascertain whether it is about faith and morals, or just a practice. If the former, then that does indeed deserve an explanation. If the latter, then it is not doctrine; therefore, it would be irrelevant to the topic. Can you send me the canon 6 through my e-mail?
In any event, I still need an answer to my question. All you did was turn the table. Problem is, both sides of the table have the same plate.
Indeed… We both agree that the Word of God is the Truth. As that is the word the Word used. Jesus has authority over all Truth.
However, this brings up another point from the Bible. “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” (John 20:21) Well, how did the Father send His Son? “[J]ust as [the Father] gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all [the Father] gave him.” This is what we believe the Church is for. And the Church is given the authority to teach the eternal Truths without error, as we both agree that Jesus taught without error. The Father sent Jesus with authority to teach about eternal life. Jesus sent His Apostles (the foundation of the Church according to Rev. 21:14) with authority to teach about eternal life.
This is why we believe that Scripture is not the final authority (not to be confused with “not an infallible authority” because it is indeed infallible). I have no clue where it is in the Gospels, but I recall a passage where the Jews said about Jesus, “Who is this man who has such authority over Scriptures?” or something to that effect. I could be wrong though and remembering something not there. But I do honestly remember it. Jesus had authority over Scripture. “He who hears you hears me” is another clue as to where this authority is at: the Church. Then in Acts 8:26-36, Philip “proclaims Jesus” with authority. He indeed use Scripture, but did not limit it to that. He had his own witness to Christ and the Old Testament. This is Sacred Tradition at its most explicit form (in my opinion).
I think that is something that needs to be addressed in Sola Scriptura. Without the aid of an infallible teaching authority, as the Eunuch said in Acts 8, “how can we understand, unless someone instructs me?” Philip was not infallible, but with the aid of his own witness (Tradition) and the Old Testament (Scriptures), he would have been able to teach without error. In Acts 8:29, the Holy Spirit led him there. This is what we mean by Sacred Tradition: the witness of the Apostles (Oral Tradition) and Scriptures (Written Tradition) are kept free of error by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes they overlap explicitly, sometimes implicitly. But, somebody has to teach the world these things infallibly. This, I believe, is what the Pope and the Church are for. This is why Christ built a Church: to teach the Truth as Christ and His Apostles taught. Does that make sense?
Your answers to my objections were pretty rational by the way. I was not expecting that. Boy, was I dead wrong! Anyway, God bless and thanks for you prayers.
Gregg
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I think that the the only verse which has ever been seriously put forth as teaching the doctrine of sola scriptura is 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
I think that the debates between serious, professional apologists have demonstrated repeatedly that these verses do NOT teach the formal sufficency of Scripture.
I think that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura at all and that it is an unbiblical tradition of Protestant men.
I think that Protestants are forced to defend sola scriptura at all costs in order to justify their separation from the Catholic Church.
I think some Protestants choose not to think about the full implications of sola scriptura while others perform amazing feats of mental gymnastics to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise result.
That’s what I think.
H
haparker321
Guest
But here’s the problem: you’re taking the negative. I’ve said on OP that SS does not negate the need for tradition. The problem here is that you have yet to prove your case for the RC definition of Oral Tradition.
We can take this via email, I don’t mind.
Parker
- Status