Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[PRmerger]

Christ came to die 1 time.

Amen! This is very Catholic of you to say, ibe.

You will have to provide evidence to make such a statement he is sacrificed every eucharist

Well, first you have to provide evidence that Catholicism proclaims he is “sacrificed every Eucharist.”

We do not blame you for your ignorance of Catholicism, ibe, but you ought to make some effort to hide it when posting.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice at Calvary. We do not proclaim that Christ is sacrificed again.

Otherwise, the Catholic Church would not have kept in the verse from Hebrews that proclaims our truth regarding “the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Im not the one worshiping bread and wine…

Well, good. That makes you Catholic in theology, too. Catholics worship the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Believe unto the Lord and you will be saved!

Do not even the demons believe, and tremble?

It’s a dangerous paradigm, ibe, to take Scripture in isolation. One needs to look at the *entire *Word of God to come to an understanding of what’s required for our salvation.

 

[Philthy]

Here is a very helpful summary of what Francis Turretin has presented on what Perspecuity is not and what it is.

Turretin on Perspicuity of Scripture

He fails just like every other SS to clearly identify how one knows the alleged perspicuous truth of Scripture from every other interpretation. It requires an authority external to Scripture to do that, and he doesnt provide one. It’s completely impractical. 500 years of confusion and division following the Reformation have clearly demonstrated this.

 

[Philthy]

And it does clearly teach the Trinity. That someone disagrees does not prove that it’s unclear in itself. It may be unclear to them. But that doesn’t mean it’s unclear.

Uhhh, I think they would - and have, and continue to - simply make the same claim - that it is not clearly taught and that simply because you disagree doesnt prove that it’s clearly taught.

 

[Philthy]

Here’s why I sincerely hope you’re not saying: That the Trinity is one of several equally plausible options and that the only reason why you’re Trinitarian and not, say, Arian is because your church ultimately voted to go Trinitarian so that the truth rests on the authority of the church rather than on the teaching of scripture.

Miguel you are such a dreamer! What percentage of people who hold a belief in the Trinity have the intellect, education, and all of the other necessary skills, time, etc in order to properly determine it to be the best reconciliation of “all the information we have”? I want a number, Miguel. Is it more than1%? Whatever it is, all the other people - and I’ll propose that it’s 99% - believe in the Trinity because someone told them it is true and they consider that source to be trustworthy. Catholics trust the successors to the Apostles as that trustworthy source. Non-Catholics trust some one else who cannot claim to have that authority. So your “sincere hope” seems irrational, impractical and hypocritical because virtually every SS adherent has an authority apart from Scripture that provides them with the doctrine of the Trinity - most of them trust themselves under the guise of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.

 

[Philthy]

That’s not what Protestants have historically understood by perspicuity. One way to understand it is this: Because the Bible is inerrant, any errors in doctrine that are promulgated in the church are to be blamed on our fallibility and not the intrinsic lack of clarity of the Bible.

Im trying to think of a more uselessly redundant concept……I can’t think of one. So the concept of perspicuity adds what, exactly, to the concept of inerrancy?

 

[paul_c]

Im not sure if its that no one here can answer my assertions or point out my error in the choosing of the scriptures I did to support sola scriptura but they must be answered.you wonder how people get different opinions of the scriptures eric? by ignoring points that their opposition makes and proclaiming their view supreme by sayings things like “oh you just cant see”…Is this not the same argument made by lucifarions? Its the same error atheist make, they cling to their doctrine of science but when evidence flys in their face of God and science coexisting its ignored. If your view on sola scriptura is correct (or your churches view?) Then take the following scriptures and show how they are not in support:
john 5:39-41
mark 7:7-13
1 Cor 4:6
luke 1:3-4
2 Tim 3:14-17
Luke 10:25-37
Acts 17:11
Mat 15:9
or really responsed to my posts 726-31 to prevent going in circles.

Just because a passage mentions scripture, doesn’t mean that scripture alone is sufficient to lead you to salvation. Jesus points that out in John 5:39-41 when he explains to the pharisees who were relying on their failed intepretation of scripture to save them, leading them to misunderstand what Jesus was telling them. In mark 7, jesus makes a similar point. His Jewish audience was fixated on their false interpretation of the law (scripture) and missing the message behind it. What you interpret as supporting sola scriptura is actually condemning it. Such is the problem with personal, not-authoritative interpretation.

if its just a time issue i understand, its alot of material and debate to analyze. but by your tone guan i somewhat get the feeling youd rather concern yourself calling me a heretic (or at least implying it) than disproving my assertions.
let me make one thing clear and this is a point i think most Catholics miss. the bible does not exclude traditions to be held so long as they are not thought of being necessary. For example celebrating christmas is not instructed in the bible. really everyday to a proper christian should be a celebration of christmas but regardless do i think im in danger of hellfire for doing so? no. I also celebrate easter which is another tradition passed down outside of the bible. is it necessary to celebrate easter? no, is it okay? definitly. It is when these traditions are said to be necessary and that one will not partake in the kingdom for not participating in them. I do not deny traditions are in the bible, however the instruction for them to be properly done is also in the bible. Passover is one of the earliest ones. So if God has placed a tradition in the bible with explicit teachings on how to celebrate it even, what makes you believe that we are bound to traditions outside of the bible? or even further what is your strongest evidence they are not already there in the text?

I think you really have many, many misconceptions of what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic church was commissioned by Jesus to spread the gospel to all the nations and to administer the sacraments. That is recorded in Matthew 28: 18-20 but understood most fully through Catholic Tradition

now you are talking to one who believes heavily in sola scriptura, how will you convince me its an unholy doctrine? by showing the text itself never meant of itself to be the sole authoritative word. careful how you go about this though, it would be too easy to say that if the bible is not the sole authoritative word then the koran would have an equal chance really of saying its the most recent revelation.

Scripture was never meant to be the only way you know about God. Jesus didn’t leave a book behind, he left Apostles to spread the word. And they did through their personal witness. This has been passed on to this day. Along the way, some of what they witnessed was written down and of all the writings left, the Catholic Church canonized 27 books to be the official liturgical and teaching writings. But this isn’t the sole understanding of the Faith. While the Bible speaks to the sacraments, it doesn’t explain how to administer them appropriately. That is Catholic tradition. The bible explains that the Apostles sang hymns but the hymns themselves are part of Catholic Tradition. The bible explains some of the prayers and devotions carried out by the Apostles, but not all of them. That is part of Catholic Tradition.

You make it sound like Catholics are against scripture. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The books of the new testament were eye witness accounts of the truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles and have great value. However, they must be understood within the context of the Catholic tradition in which they were written. Remember, it was under the authority of the Catholic Church that scripture was written. Scripture didn’t give authority to the Church. The reason that scripture can be believed to begin with is because it was authorized by the Church. Nothing the Catholic Church teaches is in opposition to scripture because part of the criteria for their inclusion in the canon was their fidelity to Catholic tradition. If you think there is opposition, its only because you misinterprit the meaning of scripture. We can help you with that if you want to bring up specific issues

 

[PRmerger]

Just because a passage mentions scripture, doesn’t mean that scripture alone is sufficient to lead you to salvation.

'zactly.

It would be like Catholics using every verse that says “Mary” to provide apologia for her Immaculate Conception. That is, just because a verse mentions her name does not equate a defense of whatever doctrine is being questioned.

*NB: I am not saying, BTW, that the IC cannot be supported by Scripture. That is a different argument than what I am proposing above.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;7998409:

ibetrippin07;7996495:

his word alone is authoritative enough.He simply speaks a word and a man is healed. the apostles…no.

Ibetrippin, do you not remember what you yourself wrote? I’ve quoted it above to help your memory.

please provide my quoted words stating foolishly “The apostles didnt heal and implied that they couldnt perform any miracles” !

ibt, As everyone can see, the quote from your post above is “quote=ibetrippin07;7996495]his word alone is authoritative enough.He simply speaks a word and a man is healed. the apostles…no.”

Everyone can see what you wrote, why do you persist in denying it. It is a rediculous to deny it as it was for that New York congressman; everybody can read what you wrote. Why not come clean?

 

[guanophore]

Just because a passage mentions scripture, doesn’t mean that scripture alone is sufficient to lead you to salvation.

I agree that just because a passag mentions Scripture does not equate to SS. However, Scripture is sufficient to lead us to salvation. Salvation is found in Christ, and His Church. Scripture will lead people unto this.

2 Tim 3:14-16
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and** how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. **

John 5:39-40
9 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

The problem is that people read the Scriptures, which instruct them to come to Christ in His One Body, the Church, but refuse to come. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. Scripture is sufficient to lead us to Christ. Having come to Him, we are baptized into His One Body. At that point, we receive the gifts that are given to us through the Church to work out our salvation, and become mature in HIm.

Eph 4:8-13
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

…And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

The equipping is to be done by those appointed and gifted to do so by Jesus.

Scripture was never meant to be the only way you know about God. Jesus didn’t leave a book behind, he left Apostles to spread the word.

True, but it is materially sufficient, which means it can lead people to Christ. Then they must come to Him, that living stone. Many of our separated brethren justify being separated from His Church, or believe that they are in unity when they are not. Some even have this “Jesus and me - nobody else, just us” which is not consistent with His structure.

You make it sound like Catholics are against scripture. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

I hve noticed this also in this thread. Adherants of SS post the great qualities of Scripture, claiming that they support SS. All those of Apostolic faiths (Catholic, Orthodox, etc. value the Scriptures in all these qualities without falling into the error of SS. .

 

[guanophore]

ibe, As everyone can see, the quote from your post above
is

his word alone is authoritative enough.He simply speaks a word and a man is healed. the apostles…no.

"

Everyone can see what you wrote, why do you persist in denying it. It is a rediculous to deny it as it was for that New York congressman; everybody can read what you wrote. Why not come clean?

Ibe has made a number of statements in this thread that are embarrassing and ridiculous. I don’t think he took into account that whatever is written will be there for a long time.

 

[Kyrby_Caluna]

Still a stupid question. If you think your more intelligent and inspired than the Catholic Church then go and fantasize that Sola Scriptura is true! After all, Fantasy is free-of-charge.

 

[guanophore]

Still a stupid question. If you think your more intelligent and inspired than the Catholic Church then go and fantasize that Sola Scriptura is true! After all, Fantasy is free-of-charge.

I don’t think it is a stupid question, because most people who have embraced this error have never asked themselves “is this in the bible?”. Most don’t have the integrity of Miguel, who is able to say “no”.

 

[justtryin]

Still a stupid question. If you think your more intelligent and inspired than the Catholic Church then go and fantasize that Sola Scriptura is true! After all, Fantasy is free-of-charge.

Viewing your other posts shows me you really love the word “stupid.”

As I am one who is struggling with issues of pride and certitude, I think you need to take a few steps back. We all struggle thinking we know so much. If you view some of my posts you can see that at times “I think I know so much!” In reality I know so little. It was in rashness that I made these posts. For that I am sorry. Just like my sins they are there for all to see. As one newbie to another I can honestly say we all have much to learn.

(sorry if I was off topic)

 

[guanophore]

Viewing your other posts shows me you really love the word “stupid.”

(sorry if I was off topic)

Sometimes the posts say much more about the poster than they do the topic.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Just because a passage mentions scripture, doesn’t mean that scripture alone is sufficient to lead you to salvation.

Careful Guanophore, while scripture CAN lead us to salvation, the improper interpretation of scripture can also lead us to condemnation. Remember in Matthew 4, where Satan uses his interpretation of scripture to tempt Jesus? You undoubtedly have come across MANY people on this forum and even on this thread who insist that their heretical views are scripture based. Peter warned about this in his second letter. Indeed, I would argue that without the basis of Catholic tradition as a reference, the messages of scripture will be distorted and misapplied. It reminds me of this passage in Matthew 13 following the parable of the sower:

10 The disciples approached him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”
11 He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.
12 To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.’
14 Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see.
15 Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.’
16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear.

It seems to me that this applies to scripture as well. Like the parables, the scriptures are available to everyone. But to understand them, you need to be open to the message and be humble enough to let those who got the explanation from the source explain it to you. This is why Catholic tradition is absolutely required to correctly understand scripture.

Originally Posted by paul c
Scripture was never meant to be the only way you know about God. Jesus didn’t leave a book behind, he left Apostles to spread the word.

I think we are in agreement on this. Jesus appointed his apostles (the Church) to teach the gospel and administer the sacraments. All people who come to Jesus do so through the Church because that’s how he set it up. Even those that come to know Jesus through the Bible are actually doing so through the Church, which wrote, compiled and canonized it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
You make it sound like Catholics are against scripture. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Right, this is an artifact of the rebellion against the authority (and really the teaching) of the Catholic Church. The Protestant reformers framed their rebellion as Scripture vs Tradition while Catholics always saw it as Scripture through and with tradion. No matter how the reformers wanted to frame it, its really their teachings vs the teachings of the church. Sola Scriptura is simply their means of justifying theiri own views
.

---

 

[EricFilmer]

And it does clearly teach the Trinity. That someone disagrees does not prove that it’s unclear in itself. It may be unclear to them. But that doesn’t mean it’s unclear.

Then clearly show to me where the Bible clearly teaches the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity with the material and formal sufficiency that you claim the Bible has for determining doctrine. If you can’t then in terms of Sola Scriptura, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity somehow “fell through the cracks”.

Now…for the record, I am not going to reinvent the wheel and prove Trinity. That has been done already.

And it was done already by authority of the Magisterium through an examination of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

My position is that the Bible clearly teaches all the truths of the Trinity either directly or by necessary deduction from other explicit truths.

Are you really suggesting that an interpretation which, in essence, teaches that 1+1+1=1 is a necessary deduction??? Is this your notion of an "explicit truth"???

You can point out all the nay-sayers who have a different take on this throughout history all you want. But the most you can prove by doing so is that the doctrine is unclear to them.

Many of them made deductions from Scripture that are just as logical as yours. Seeing as they are not making the postulation that 1+1+1=1, it can be argued that their deductions are even more logical.

Presumably, as a Trinitarian, you would agree that the doctrine ia the only interpretation of scripture that makes sense of all the data we have and that any other interpretation ultimately gets something wrong.

Yes, but the question is: What constitutes “all the data we have”? To me, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is formulated upon the totality of God’s revelation, which includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and has been declared an official teaching by the authority of the Magisterium.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that “all the data” equates “only Scripture,” then I disagree that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the only interpretation of Scripture that makes sense. And if your concept of “all the date” encompasses Tradition (based on your understanding of the term), Patristics, and/or other extra-biblical sources, then you have failed to demonstrate that Scripture alone is enough to get the job done. In other words, your method would be demonstrating that the Bible alone does not have the material and formal sufficiency to determine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

If you don’t believe this, then you should give up your beliefs in the Trinity as it would not be rationale to hold to a belief that you believe to be wrong.

Why on earth would I be compelled to give up my belief in the Trinity? And where did I ever imply that I believed the doctrine “to be wrong”? When (in this thread) I bring up objections certain heretics make, I am simply playing “devil’s advocate” for the sake of the experiment. If I thought they were right, why would I call them heretics? As I have repeatedly stated, from the Catholic perspective the doctrine is clearly found in revelation (Scripture + Tradition) and is authenticated by an action of the Magisterium. Moreover, I believe that the doctrine makes sense based on elaborations of some of the ECFs (which went beyond what Scripture actually says).

Here’s why I sincerely hope you’re not saying: That the Trinity is one of several equally plausible options and that the only reason why you’re Trinitarian and not, say, Arian is because your church ultimately voted to go Trinitarian so that the truth rests on the authority of the church rather than on the teaching of scripture.

So the Church simply “voted to go Trinitarian”, huh? You make the Council of Nicea sound like the Jesus Seminar voting on the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus with colored beans. Once more, for the record, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is revealed by God in Sacred Tradition, with elements of it being likewise found in Sacred Scripture, and the formulation of the doctrine was done by the Magisterium with the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[paul_c]

I’ ve come to the conclusion that if Miguel was right that the Apostles believed in sola scriptura and that nothing can be added to scripture then the New Testament would never have been written or canonized. Simply put, the Apostles could not have believed in sola scriptura and then added the New Testament to the Old. And if the Apostles didn’t believe in it and they learned directly for Jesus, God incarnate, then why should we believe that such a doctrine has any credibility.

Thanks, Miguel for making this so abundantly clear. Without your prodding, this would never have come to mind.

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Wait a minute. You’re the one who first said the doctrine isn’t clear. But that’s your interpretation.

The doctrine is clearly taught within God’s revelation. But it is not clearly taught within the Bible alone.

And it’s the major premise here in your argument (what I’m calling “The Trinity Gambit.”) But I deny your major and so it’s not on me to prove the clarity of the Trinity, but on you to show why its unclear.

Wow, Miguel! For a moment there you sounded like Parker, the OP (with his, “Sola Scriptura is biblical because Catholics can’t prove it’s not” statements).

Well, I will tell you what I told him: In a scholarly debate, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the positive claim. You are the one making the positive claim because of these statements you made:

“And it (the Bible) does clearly teach the Trinity.”
“If I wanted to defend the Trinity on the basis of scripture I could.”

So to this I say, “Prove it.” In other words, it is, indeed, up to you to prove the clarity of the Bible’s teaching of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

But I will also point out that I already have shown why it is unclear, and that happened in these posts:
Post #682
Post #683
Post #684
Post #685

Let’s be clear about your claim. You draw the conclusion that because there are multiple interpretation of the Bible that the Bible is therefore unclear. But that conclusion does not follow. It overlooks the possibility that some interpretations are simply wrong.

Then use the Bible alone to PROVE that they are wrong! The whole point of this challenge is to use a specific example to see if the Bible is capable of actually doing what your definition of Sola Scriptura says it is! In other words, show me the material and formal sufficiency of the Bible that can determine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If you cannot then the Bible alone is not sufficient for the determination of all Christian doctrine, and I may also add that it is not sufficient to defend doctrine against other plausible interpretations of Scripture (at least as far as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity goes).

If I give a Spanish vocabulary quiz to my students and half of them miss the same word–that doesn’t mean the definition of the word is in doubt. The mere fact of a wrong interpretation does not mean the answer is intrinsically ambiguous.

Some interpretations can be objectively declared to be wrong based on the Scriptures alone. For example, because Jesus said, “I came to bring not peace but a sword,” one could say that Jesus wants us to hate our enemies. But this contradicts what Jesus clearly said about loving our enemies. There is really not much room, if any, for an honest debate in this case.

But in other cases, there may be more than one plausible interpretation, and these interpretations may convey different meanings (even when the wider context of the passages are examined). In this case, the text is, indeed, intrinsically ambiguous. To have complete certainty over its meaning, we have to ask the author what he specifically had in mind when he wrote it.

**The Scriptures were ultimately written by God. When certain passages in the Bible are ambiguous, our only recourse is to, in essence, find out what God meant when this passage was written. According to Catholics, this is done by appealing to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (with its guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit to officially define Scripture and Tradition).

But it seems that according to adherents of Sola Scriptura, finding out what God meant is done by arguing whose personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture sounds the most reasonable. But how often do people agree with what is “most reasonable”? This is the process that you have basically been doing when debating me (and others) over Scriptural interpretations in this thread. And this is also what we see in the responses of ibetrippin07 in the following posts (as well as others) :**

Post #147
Post #148
Post #752
Post #753
Post #754
Post #755
Post #770

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

More likely, the students have not prepared sufficiently. Perhaps they have confused a similar word for another or simply forgotten. The error in this case resides in the student and not the word he or she is attempting to interpret.

Or maybe there is more than one possible interpretation. Using your example (but switching the vocabulary test from Spanish to English – my Spanish is not all that good - but my Spanglish is at least improving), let us say that a professor was giving an English vocabulary test and asked the question, “Define the meaning of the word, ‘close’.” And let us say that some of the students answer, “to be in near proximity of”, while others answer, “to move something from an open position to a shut position.” These are two different meanings (for example, a garage door opener is designed to allow someone to “close” a garage door without having to be “close” to the garage door in order to do so; so here is the same word used twice in the same sentence, but each with a different meaning). So on the vocabulary test, which answer is correct and which answer is false? Obviously, they are both correct; they are both perfectly plausible answers.

But let us go a step further. Can any of the students know which of the definitions the professor personally had in mind when designing the test? Based on what the test actually says in print, they cannot make this determination. They have to appeal to a source outside the exam in order to know, such as asking the professor, or seeing the teacher’s edition of the exam with the blanks filled in. To put this example into the Catholic perspective, resorting to Sacred Tradition and official Magisterial teaching amounts to “asking the professor (i.e., God) or seeing the teacher’s edition of the exam” in order to “fill in the blanks” of Scriptural teaching. The perspective of the adherent of Sola Scriptura is to keep staring at the text on the exam while trying to figure out what the professor might be saying.

No. I am not going down this road. If I wanted to defend the Trinity on the basis of scripture I could.

But we have already been “going down this road”, and we have been doing so for days. See for yourself:

Round One:
My presentation of Challenge #4: Post #592 (with an addition presented in Post #596.
Your response: Post #603. Sure, you initially said, “Challenge not accepted”, but then you immediately accepted it anyway by providing answers to the various points of the challenge.

Round Two:
My critique of your response: Post #682 (through Post #685).
Your defense of your position against my critique: Post#714 & Post #715

Round Three:
In Post #738 I pointed out that you did not sufficient address the point I made concerning Arnold’s use of Scripture (in which he demonstrated that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not biblical).
So your response in terms of round three is what we are in the midst of examining at this moment. Therefore, why are you all of a sudden saying, “No. I am not going down this road”?

(Continued in my next post)