Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[GreggAlvarez]

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

This does not deny a place for tradition but it is subordinate to Scripture and it is not necessary for salvation. Neither does it say that all Scripture is clear, but that what is necessary is clear. It is not necessary for everyone to read the Scripture. People can hear Scripture and be taught orally from it.

This explanation confuses me. How was the canon of Scripture to be compiled? The canon itself proves that we need something outside the Bible. How were Christians supposed to know what was supposed to be in the Bible and what was not?

Also, what confuses is the fact that you say “what is necessary is clear”. This seems to indicate that there are unnecessary things. In any event, how do we know what is necessary? It is not self-evident either.

All Scripture is inspired by God. No other source of revelation is similarly described.

Agreed. Kind of… There are clues as to the significance of Oral Tradition (Apostolic witness). Acts 8 for example. Philip used Tradition to shed light on Scriptures.

Theophilus had already been taught orally but was that enough? This gospel was written so that he could know the exact true of what he had been taught. By implication it would seem that some of the oral teaching was not exactly true.

My Bible says “so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” This goes more in line with what Theophilus was taught (whatever that was) because it would indicate that what they were taught about Jesus was true and all true.

Your explanation indicates that what the Apostles themselves were taught was “not exactly true.” That or they forgot some teachings. Verse two points to Oral Tradition also. It indicates that it is just as good as Scriptures with the Truth. Rather, it indicates that Scriptures could ot be written without Tradition.

The writer is direct; all of Christ’s deeds are not recorded in his gospel. However, the reason for writing was so that we could believe and have life. What is written in this one gospel is enough to allow us to believe in Jesus and be saved…

Ok… What about authority? You just said “what is necessary is clear”. Who tells us what is necessary? Is Faith Alone necessary? Or is Faith and Works necessary? Who has the authority to teach this?

It seems you also indicated unnecessary items in Scripture.

Timothy had been taught directly by Paul. Was this enough? Paul wrote to him so he would know how to conduct himself in the church. As an aside, Paul calls the church the pillar and support of the truth. It does not say the truth comes from the church.

Paul also wrote him because they were separated. How do you get from “I am writing” to “what he taught was not enough”?

And nobody says that “truth comes from the church”. We all agree that the Truth comes from God. Perhaps, declarations come from the Church is a closer definition of Catholics. But “The pillar and foundation of the truth” assumes that the truth is already there supported by the Church. The Holy Spirit guards it from error.

Picture the truth supported by a foundation and pillars.

Israel was to keep what was written. It says nothing about keeping any oral commandments.

Ok… This one passage says nothing about oral traditions just like 1 Cor 11:2 says nothing about written.

Israel was to walk in God’s ways, keep His statutes, His Commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies. How did they know what these were? They knew because they had been written. It says nothing about oral teachings that might have been passed down by the Levitical priesthood.

See above. I can quote many that talk only about traditions and not Scripture.

But, what about the people who did not have these Scriptures? Were each and every person taught this from Scripture or from Tradition?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Does Jesus ask what the lawyer had been taught orally? No, He asks him what was written; it is this that tells what must be done.

Why would he ask that? Your question is nonsense. Like me asking, “Does Jesus ask the lawyer to look at the final authority?”

I wonder how Luke was written: from Scriptures or from Tradition (apostolic witness)

Jesus taught to show how what was written must be fulfilled, not how oral teachings were to be fulfilled.

This is irrelevant to the conversation. No person says that oral teachings are fulfilled. This is completely irrelevant.

The gospel of God was promised in Scripture, not by any oral teachings passed down.

This begs the question and leads to unwarranted conclusions.

It was what was written in Scripture that would instruct us that we might be encouraged, persevere and have hope.

Yes, however, humans have a desire to see things in order to believe it. To us, it seems more permanent than Tradition because it is written. The Commandments were written in stone, even though He had it written in our hearts.

It seems as if Sola Scriptura were only there because we want and need to see everything with our own eyes to believe it. Scripture happens to be the only thing we can see in our beliefs. Hence, the invention of Sola Scriptura.

On only one occasion does Jesus actually refer to tradition and that is to condemn it.

Yet, even He tells His disciples to listen to the Pharisees, but not to follow their example.

Paul delibrately disobeyed Jesus in Scripture if Jesus did indeed condemn any and all traditions.

In the epistles Paul refers to tradition several times. Paul basically treats tradition as synonymous with teaching. There is only one place where he speaks of oral tradition.

So, you admit that oral traditions are mentioned in Scripture.

This must be read in its proper context. We have only two short letters that Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. It is clear from reading them that they do not include all the teaching contained in the rest of Scripture or even in Paul’s letters to others. There is nothing to show that what Paul taught orally to the Thessalonians he or another did not write to elsewhere. There is nothing that requires that this oral teaching be something other than what has been recorded elsewhere.

Big mistake… Paul clearly differentiates between the two. It is also clear by now that Jesus did not condemn any and all traditions. If He did, He would condemn the written traditions, as Paul does state that there are oral and written traditions. There is also nothing to show that these oral traditions WERE written in Scriptures elsewhere. As being inspired by the Holy Spirit, my argument is closer to the Truth than yours. We hold fast to Traditions because Scripture tells us to. There must be true things in it. There is nothing to indicate they are or are not in other Scriptures.

In any case, this is the proper context: 1 Thess 2:2,15 indicate that there are true traditions and false traditions. Written and oral. Sola Scriptura does not account for Paul’s warning and exhortation to keep his oral traditions.

We have both Jesus and Paul warning about traditions of men. We are told that Scripture is inspired. We are not told what oral traditions, if any, might be inspired.

Neither are we told which Scriptures might be inspired.

We are told to examine everything carefully. We are not to accept uncritically everything we are told or taught.

Agreed. We do that.

“Retain what is good.” St. Paul would not have taught us to hold fast to the traditions (written and oral) the Apostles or authorities taught if they were not good.

Examining everything involves applying our judgement to what is taught. How can we examine oral traditions without some standard independent of the source providing that tradition? That standard is Scripture.

How can we examine Scriptures if we are not sure our interpretation is correct? How did we decide which were man-made scriptures and which were God-authored? To say that the “standard is Scripture” is to disregard how Scriptures got separated from man-made scrolls in the first place. The standard cannot be Scripture.

Yes, there are man-made traditions. We do not deny that, but to equate “man-made” with “all” is forcing your theology on Scripture. If Paul says “man-made traditions”, this seems to say that there are traditions that are not man-made. Rather, they are by God.

There must be another final authority outside Scripture. One that binds and looses. One that teaches. One that Christ set up as the pillar and foundation of Truth.

 

[EricFilmer]

What does Scripture have to say about itself?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2Ti 3:16-17 NASB)

The problem with interpreting 2Tim3:16-17 in the manner that you did (i.e., as a defense of the validity of Sola Scriptura) is that one has to throw out the entire New Testament. Not only did Paul write this prior to many of the New Testament books being compiled, but in the verse immediately preceding this (i.e., 2Tim 3:15) Paul tells us exactly what he means by the term Scripture: “…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.” The only Sacred Writings that Timothy knew “from childhood” were those of the Old Testament.

Also, I think it can be clearly argued that the preaching of the prophets was the inspired Word of God, even if it was never later put into writing. After all, generally speaking, the prophets were divinely inspired to act as God’s mouthpiece. For example, Jeremiah was called by God to be a prophet, told what to say, and then he verbally preached in the streets of Jerusalem. At some later time his preaching was placed into writing. Obviously, Jeremiah’s preaching was the inspired Word of God during the actual oral preaching in the streets and did not have to wait to be considered so until it was finally put into writing. Had his preaching never been committed to writing, it still would have been the inspired Word of God. Off the top of my head, the only biblical book of prophecy I know of where the person was instructed by God to “write first, preach later” is Revelation.

For my standard objections to Sola Scriptura (which were included in this thread), please see Post #21.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Parker has, so far, left the question I posted on May 7 unanswered, so here it is again along with his statement that I was responding to:

Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures

I can’t help but notice that the word “everything” is all inclusive. According to Parker, absolutely everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture.

Therefore, to prove this wrong, it is necessary to show only one essential Christian belief that is not derived from scripture.

Parker, you have already shown us that you believe the 27 books in the New Testament are scripture by quoting them. In fact, you can’t point to what those books say and declare it is the word of God until you have already accepted them as scripture. It is therefore essential to know those books are scripture before you can derive anything in them as infallibly coming from God.

So where in scripture does it tell us those 27 books are scripture? Where can I derive from scripture, for example, that the gospel of Matthew is scripture?

Please quote book, chapter, and verse that tells us we should accept each and every one of those 27 books as scripture.

If you cannot, then you have failed to show that “everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture” for you will not have shown us where you yourself derive the belief that those 27 books are indeed scripture. In other words, where from scripture do you derive this essential belief?

Please do not ignore or refuse to answer my question. Please consider what it says to everyone here that you either cannot or purposely will not answer it.

Parker, the question is not going away. Please answer the question!!!

 

[DrPiano]

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

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.

I agree with these two wise men. Unfortunately it appears that Parker has no intention of using the rules of argumentation, rhetoric, and logic. Nor does he have any intention of putting forth a coherent defense of his positive claim - that sola scriptura is biblical. Like others, I’ve made several rational objections to Parker - objections which have yet to be addressed, much less answered. They can be found here and here.

I used to cling to Sola Scriptura. It was the only way to make sense out of things. But I never examined why I believed it. I believed it because my mother taught it to me. I believed it because my church taught it to me. When it was suggested that I actually prove SS only using the means allowed by SS, despite really knowing the Bible I couldn’t do it. And I found that other verses, those discussing oral tradition throughout the NT epistles, didn’t fit within the SS framework. I have come to realize that Sola Scriptura is NOT biblical. Nor is it historical. Nor is it rational.

Parker, I hope that you let go of your refusal to obey the rules of logic. I hope that you stop hiding from really confronting difficult questions. But unless and until that happens, I’ve realized that spending time in this thread is a waste of time, a waste of brain power, and a waste of words. You did not start this thread in good faith. You do not continue this thread in good faith. You appear to have no intention of ever looking at this question in good faith. And that makes me sincerely sad. I will pray for you.

 

[vwtaylorii]

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. 
   If these versus prove Scripture is the sole source of faith and practice, How can you explain Eph 4: 10-15) which pretty much explicitly says teachers make a person completely furnish when you look at the greek words? The greek word for perfect in verse 12 [Katartismos] literally means completely furnish/equipped; the greek word in verse 13 for perfect [Teleios] mean to bring to an end or full grown adult.

 

[JonNC]

=GreggAlvarez;7847514]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?

Then my prayers continue beyond the “ish”.

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?

No, I do not know if the bread remains, as Christ does not say. what He says is, “this is my body”, and that is what I believe. This is how Melanchthon defends the teaching in the APology of the Augsburg Confession.

…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Notice three things here. He first relies on scripture, the words of Christ Himself. He then continues by referencing the historic Church, both east and west. He then concludes by referencing Vulgarius and Cyril. And this is how I know that the real presence is just that, the protests of others notwithstanding.

continued

 

[JonNC]

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?

From the Ecumenical Council of Nicea, 325

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”

The Council of Nicea is accepted by Catholics, Orthodoxy, Lutherans, and I believe Anglicans, as well.

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.

Agreed

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.

I believe this, too. This is exactly what the Church is for. The problem, as I see it, is the Church established at Pentecost, even discounting Protestantism, is divided into to parts, and has been for 1,000 years. How do I know which is teaching all truth?
The Church is more than the Church Militant, which has in it fallible men.

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).

And sola scriptura does not reject Sacred Tradition. Again, take a look at Melanchthon’s words regarding His real presence. It is a precise example of how SS works. From a foundation of scripture, we rely on the Church to teach.

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?

Absolutely, though with the conflict regarding councils and teachers (how many councils do the Orthodox not accept as authoritative), SS is a practice of relying on scripture as the final norm, by which all teachers and teachings are held accountable.

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.

That is very nice of you to say.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t really understand how a TULIP/Calvinist Presbyterian can claim that Scripture is necessary for salvation when, according to Calvin, the cause of salvation is predestination (unconditional election, the “U” in TULIP)–and NOT Scripture, faith, or anything else. In the Calvinist world you’re concieved either saved or reprobate, Psalm 51:5 and 2 Timothy 5:4 notwithstanding. So as long as you are a Calvinist (claiming election is unconditional) you cannot claim Scripture (alone) is necessary for salvation, as this necessarily presupposes that election is conditional on Scripture; these are two mutually exclusive positions.

For that matter, I don’t see how you can be any kind of Protestant and claim Sola Scriptura because Protestants have church buildings, and church buildings aren’t in the Bible.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

From the Ecumenical Council of Nicea, 325

I have no idea what the heck any of that means. I have no clue what neither “Metropolitan” or “Great Synod” even mean. So… it would best for humanity if I were to stay out of that one.

I believe this, too. This is exactly what the Church is for. The problem, as I see it, is the Church established at Pentecost, even discounting Protestantism, is divided into to parts, and has been for 1,000 years.

I am not educated in Orthodox theology (or anybody else’s either, much less mine). But, one must assume that the split is because of doctrinal issues. One has to be right and the other wrong.

Same for Protestantism. This is about Truth here. Jesus is the Truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. The Church is His Body, the Truth.

Faith and Works or Faith Alone. Purgatory or no Purgatory. Infallible Church authority or Sola Scriptura.

Somebody has to be right. These are major differences here. My point here is that all Christians are at least part of the Church (if not fully) because we all have common beliefs. Resurrection, Atonement, Creation, Ascension, etc… But, some do not have 100% of the that Truth.

How do I know which is teaching all truth?

Two things are for certain: there are those who add what is not true and those who take away what is true.

The Church is more than the Church Militant, which has in it fallible men.

Agreed. Why would Jesus build a Church though if it were not to proclaim the Truth the world, including those in it?

And sola scriptura does not reject Sacred Tradition. Again, take a look at Melanchthon’s words regarding His real presence. It is a precise example of how SS works.

Sacred Tradition from a Catholic viewpoint says that Tradition AND Scriptures are both the infallible Word of God… If something was passed down and written down (like the Immaculate Conception) and it is intandemn with Scriptures, then it is true.

Truth cannot contradict Truth. The spoken Word of God cannot contradict the written Word of God. I suppose from a time frame perspective the final authority is literally Scripture. But the Bible itself was separated from false gospels by spoken Word of God. So, the Scriptures were accountable to Oral Tradition. Oral Tradition shed light on Scripture and still does to this day. This is why we believe them both to be infallibly authoritative in their own respect. But somebody has to discern which is true, whether written things or oral things.

From a foundation of scripture, we rely on the Church to teach.

Revelations 21:14 says the Apostles were the foundation of the Church. This would seem that the teachings of the Apostles are the foundation, whether spoken or oral. The walls of the Church along with the foundation (which are the Apostles) are “pillar and foundation of the Truth”. The strength of the Church is from the Apostles and those whom Christ builds on them. The Church is shown as what keeps the Truth from shaking. It keeps the Truth, as any other foundation would do for whatever is on it (assuming a good engineer and/or carpenter).

Absolutely, though with the conflict regarding councils and teachers (how many councils do the Orthodox not accept as authoritative), SS is a practice of relying on scripture as the final norm, by which all teachers and teachings are held accountable.

I too believe that any belief is accountable to Scripture; more precisely, I believe that any belief is accountable to Scripture, Tradition AND the Church in order to really weed out what is false without any question. For example, the Rapture… I will not lie: it can be concocted from Scriptures. But, that does not make it right. Where to next? Tradition. No Church Fathers, no councils, no Orthodox, no Protestant Reformer ever taught anything remotely similar to the Rapture. It was started in the 1800’s. It does not stand the test of Scripture or Tradition. If Scripture were the final norm, how in the world are we supposed to know the Rapture is truly false?

The Church only proclaims what has already been known since the time of Jesus. It never teaches anything more than that, nor does it change anything.

That is very nice of you to say.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

It seems to me that this whole Sola Scriptura Argument always comes down to authority. The Catholic Church claims the authority to teach the faith and administer the sacraments that was bestowed on St. Peter and the Apostles and duly noted in scripture, by the way. . Protestants deny that claim but are forced to recognize that without the Church, they have no access to the teachings of Christ except that which was written down in scriptures by Catholics. This puts them in the peculiar position of denying the Catholic verbal teaching while accepting what was written down and compiled by the Church. This is analagous to a student rejecting what a teacher says unless that teacher writes it down- as if writing it down somehow makes an idea true.

But more fundamentally, How would someone know that scripture is from God unless someone of authority (the Pope) pronounces it as such. Surely no one is so foolish to accept the argument that scripture is God breathed because scripture says it is so. Self claims have no credibility. And the Ops argument is equally ridiculous: Sola Scriptura is true because scripture says its true. Again, a completely circular argument even if it was true (which its not).

There are so many easy arguments against sola scriptura that its a wonder that anyone is still claiming it is true.

1. Books have no authority because they can’t explain themselves and they can force adherance to whath they say
2. If sola scriptura could really be used to teach the truth without inafllabile interpretation, then how come there is so much doctrinal disagreement among sola scriptura advocates?
3. Why doesn’t scriptura describe how to conduct a baptism if it is all inclusive?
4. Why does scripture not have a table of contents?
5. How could salvation be dependent on scripture, when it wasn’t available until many years (3+ centuries after Christ)

6 If written scipture was so important , why didn’t Jesus write the Gospel himself.

 

[pablope]

It seems to me that this whole Sola Scriptura Argument always comes down to authority. The Catholic Church claims the authority to teach the faith and administer the sacraments that was bestowed on St. Peter and the Apostles and duly noted in scripture, by the way. . Protestants deny that claim but are forced to recognize that without the Church, they have no access to the teachings of Christ except that which was written down in scriptures by Catholics. This puts them in the peculiar position of denying the Catholic verbal teaching while accepting what was written down and compiled by the Church. This is analagous to a student rejecting what a teacher says unless that teacher writes it down- as if writing it down somehow makes an idea true.

6 If written scipture was so important , why didn’t Jesus write the Gospel himself.

And pride, if I may add.

 

[copperblade]

The concept of Sola Scriptura makes no sense to begin with. Scripture in a vacuum? Every interpretation is correct? If not, then it’s not Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures have no meaning without a mind that understands them. You might as well just say you don’t even need them–that people should only commune directly with God and leave everything else out of it.

By the way, Luke 22:31-32

 

[haparker321]

The Catholic Catechism is history.

It’s a historical document, but not what I’m looking for.

Well, from my own personal experiences, the proof comes from just about every time I debate SS. An adherent of it will jump in and say, “That’s not what SS is!” and then I get one of several floating definitions of SS that people pick and choose from.

The same problem can be accounted for in Roman Catholicism because we don’t have an absolute definition of what ‘tradition’ is despite many of them interpreting it with the Catechism. Also, you might be creating a straw man, which I wouldn’t disagree if they made those kinds of objections. You might want to try to cite an official Protestant source.

Some say it is explicitly taught, some say implicitly, some call it a doctrine, some call it a proposition, some say all Christian teachings have to be explicitly in the Bible and some say only Christian doctrines need to be, etc.

But that issue relies on what they think you mean.

When I asked him why not, he said, “Show me in the Bible where it says to pray the rosary!” In other words, if it’s not in the Bible then it is not permissible to do it.

Well that’s something different, but in many ways SS does make that implication that if it’s not permitted by Scripture, don’t practice it. However, that’s not a definition.

Now, was this guy’s definition of Sola Scriptura written down as an official doctrine of a particular Protestant denomination? I have no idea, but not every denomination records their beliefs in such a manner. But I have been told by some former Protestants that this sort of thing is exactly what was taught in their churches, and this is exactly how it was applied. My point is that there is no universal agreement among Protestants on how SS is defined and applied, regardless of whether or not they officially claim the same basic definition formulated by the Reformers.

I don’t think what he said to you was specifically his definition; did you ever ask him for a definition or not? Did he point you to an official source?

No Catholic doctrine nullifies Scriptures.

It does, when would it be alright to venerate Mary in the name of the commandment ‘Honor thy Mother and Father’ to the point when it violates the first commandment?

Before I comment on the rest of this I would like to see an example of the Scriptures authenticating itself. I’m not denying this (nor confirming it), I just want a clearer understanding of what you are describing here.

What I mean by self-authenticating is that scripture quotes other sources that consider it the word. I could be more specific if you want.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

• I don’t think some definitions of SS does.
• I don’t think some definitions of SS does.
• I don’t think some definitions of SS does.
• I don’t know what you are trying to say here.

• None of the concessions above prove SS. You are, again, suggesting an irrelevant conclusion which has nothing to do with your premise.

If you can prove this using official Protestant documents, you’d just might have a case.

Parker

 

[pablope]

If you can prove this using official Protestant documents, you’d just might have a case.

Parker

Well, is there an official protestant source? Or is it, each denomination unto its own? Maybe you could point to the official one, since you are protestant, you should have the source for it and provide it and prove or disprove according to that source?

 

[EricFilmer]

It’s a historical document, but not what I’m looking for.

And yet the ECFs are extensively quoted in the Catechism.

The same problem can be accounted for in Roman Catholicism because we don’t have an absolute definition of what ‘tradition’ is despite many of them interpreting it with the Catechism.

I think it is worth noting that we have an absolute definition for every doctrine in the Catholic Faith. Protestants do not have an absolute definition for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. For example, there is disagreement even over how to classify Sola Scriptura. Your definition seems to see it as a principle rather than a doctrine, and that was the stance also made by the OP in this thread (and he made a big distinction between the two terms). And yet there are others who claim it to specifically be a doctrine, as can be seen in the links provided in this post.

Also, you might be creating a straw man, which I wouldn’t disagree if they made those kinds of objections.

In terms of my past experiences that can be documented within CAF:
Here is a guy (SDA) who claimed that transferring observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday was in violation of his concept of Sola Scriptura:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7229103&postcount=45
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7292227&postcount=93

Here is another person who is typically denouncing specific Catholic practices (and misconceptions of Catholic practices) because they are not found in the Bible.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7291200&postcount=73

Also consider this exchange between me and a person who was critiquing Sacred Tradition according to his notion of Sola Scriptura (which eventually leads to a “that’s not what Sola Scriptura means” type of comment):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6790986&postcount=95
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6791167&postcount=97

And here is a statement from a former Evangelical on the subject of Sola Scriptura (responding to a criticism that he had not represented what Sola Scriptura actually teaches):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6795273&postcount=110

You might want to try to cite an official Protestant source.

Well, the people I just linked are Protestant sources, but I don’t see why they have to be considered “official” Protestant sources in order for me to prove that Protestants do not have a universally agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura. Quite frankly, I’m not sure what you mean by an “official” Protestant source.

But I will go ahead and cite something that might “fit the bill”. It is a quote from Keith A. Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID 83843, Canon Press, 2001) pp. 237-253. (And I will add emphasis):

“…a similar drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has occurred over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substituted an entirely different doctrine. Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.”

Mathison is a Protestant theologian, and his elaboration on this subject can be read here

But that issue relies on what they think you mean…

Well that’s something different, but in many ways SS does make that implication that if it’s not permitted by Scripture, don’t practice it. However, that’s not a definition…

I don’t think what he said to you was specifically his definition; did you ever ask him for a definition or not? Did he point you to an official source?..

All this is getting off-topic. The focus of this thread is not other people’s definition of Sola Scriptura, but yours. So here it is again from the OP:

“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.”

Once again I challenge you to show me where this is either explicitly or implicitly found in the Bible. So far you have only cited a handful of Bible verses that basically say that the Word of God is important. I remind you that awhile ago I refuted their application to your definition of Sola Scriptura, and you have not yet attempted a defense of them against my rebuttal.

To put this “in a nutshell”…

“Word of God” does not equal “Scripture and no other form of revelation”.

Moreover, the concept “The Word of God is important” does not equal “Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice.”

(Continued in my next post…

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

It does, when would it be alright to venerate Mary in the name of the commandment ‘Honor thy Mother and Father’ to the point when it violates the first commandment?

According to the teaching of the Catholic Faith, the veneration of Mary is a special form of dulia, which is the Greek word meaning the kind of honor that a human can bestow on another human. The special kind of *dulia *that Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) give Mary is called hyper-dulia. It is still not the kind of honor which a creature owes the Creator, which is called (in Greek) latria (usually translated into English as “worship” or “adoration”). According to Catholicism, latria is to be given only to the persons of the Holy Trinity (and therefore not Mary). But this is getting off-topic, so I ask that we stick with the concept of whether or not your definition of Sola Scriptura is, itself, biblical.

What I mean by self-authenticating is that scripture quotes other sources that consider it the word. I could be more specific if you want.

I’m afraid I have to ask you to please be more specific. I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to convey here (at least not yet).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

If you can prove this using official Protestant documents, you’d just might have a case.

Parker

What are you asking? You wanted Catholics to “prove” that SS didn’t do what you listed and I conceded that some definitions of SS didn’t. You now want me to prove your position?.. that I already conceded some definitions of SS didn’t do :whacky:

You: “2+2 =/= 5; but can you show me that 2+2 = 5”

Me: " 2+2 =/= 5, but that doesn’t mean that A= B"

You: “Can you prove that 2+2 =/=5”

Me:

God bless

 

[Kay_Cee]

Parker, when are you going to respond to my question in post 59? I asked you on May 7. It’s been ten days!

This is now my third request.