Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[ANNE_2]

Parker please prove what you said.

Show me where “Sola Scripture” or “only the Bible” is mentioned anywhere in the Bible. List book and verse please to prove your point.

All the Words of God are not printed in the Bible: Jn 21:25.

Where do you think the Bible came from (other than the inspired Word of God which we all agree to) ?
Hint, it did not come from Luther, King Henry the VIII, or Calvin in the 1500’s.

None of us dispute the words of the Lord, but you left this out to get the total picture,
Mt 16:17-19.

Replacement and succession started: Acts 1:16-26.

The quotes I provided are not suggestions.

 

[EricFilmer]

HIGHLY RATIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF SOLA SCRIPTURA

1) Sola Scriptura is not actually taught in Scripture, and it could easily have been, considering all the time, people and text that went into compiling the Bible. If God wanted us to follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, why not simply have ONE prophet devote ONE line of Scripture to state something like, “Scripture alone is to be the basis of formulating doctrine”? There are thousands and thousands of verses in the Bible. If only ONE of them contained such a statement then all Christians would be adherents of Sola Scriptura.

2) Sola Scriptura is a teaching that tells us to use Scripture alone when formulating doctrine. But Scripture alone cannot be used to validate Sola Scriptura. In other words, in order to demonstrate why Sola Scriptura is true, one has to make arguments outside of Scripture. This means that the proposal violates the Law of Non-contradiction, because Sola Scriptura fails its own test (i.e., it is a teaching outside of Scripture that says to reject teachings outside of Scripture).

3) Sola Scriptura is not self-evident. Approximately 4000 years have passed since God established the covenant with Abraham. And yet the Jews have never gleaned Sola Scriptura from Scripture, nor taught it. The closest thing we see in Judaism were the Sadducees who taught “Torah Only” (but they did not get this rule from Scripture itself, and their stance on “Torah Only” led them to disbelieving in a resurrection and afterlife for humans; Jesus corrected them and thereby demonstrated disapproval of their “Torah Only” principle).

Moreover, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have been around for approximately 2000 years, and yet neither the Catholic Church nor any of the various Orthodox Christian Churches have ever taught Sola Scriptura. In light of all this, literally billions of Scripture-using people have been around for 4000 years who never believed in nor taught Sola Scriptura, nor saw evidence of it in the Bible. Moreover, many adherents of Sola Scriptura disagree over the definition and application of Sola Scriptura, making it questionable as to exactly how self-evident it is even to them.

4) Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium, and yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept what books belong in the Bible (i.e., the Canons of the Old and New Testament). For example, many ancient Christians thought that the Letter of Barnabas and the Books of Enoch were divinely inspired. And yet no Christian Bible today contains them. Who told us that these books were not truly divinely inspired? God did. And how did God tell us? Through the Magisterium. So in order to be a practitioner of Sola Scriptura, one first has to ask what is and is not truly Scripture to begin with. To answer that question, Christians have relied upon what was determined by the Magisterium. But if one rejects that the Magisterium has the God-given authority to do such things, why believe in the Canons of the Old and New Testaments formulated by the Magisterium? The question remains, “What exactly are the Scriptures that are alone supposed to be used in order to practice Sola Scriptura?” (As a side note, I know that Protestants and Catholics disagree over the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament, so I am simply speaking in general terms here).

5) We have no original manuscript of any book in the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies, and so forth. Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium, and yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept that the ancient biblical manuscripts truly represent what was originally written. For example, how do I know that the Gospel of Luke in my Bible is a true representation of what Luke actually wrote, seeing as his original version has been lost since the time of the ancient Church? God verifies that it is. And how did God verify it? Through the Magisterium.

6) Sola Scriptura has not proven useful in resolving doctrinal disputes among Protestants over such topics as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, women pastors, the necessity of water Baptism, homosexual marriage, divorce, abortion, what is and is not a sacrament, etc. These are not small issues, and many people come up with contradictory statements about them, with each side citing that their position was derived from Sola Scriptura.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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

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

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

If sola scriptura didn’t deny Church Authority or Tradition it wouldn’t be “sola.” That’s just by definition.

As to your verse-proofs:

**Prov. 30:5 Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
**Yes, every word of God is flawless. It does not say (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority. Nor does it say the “word of God” is confined to Scripture. So it does not support your definition of sola scriptura. By the way, its interesting to do a New Testament keyword search for the term “the word.” Almost all, if not all, references to the phrase do not refer to Scripture but rather the message of God, usually preached.

**Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
**Same flaw as before regarding “word.” Also does not say (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority…

**Matthew 4:4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
**This passage is actually an anti-faith-alone passage for those folks who like to reduce the Gospel to “faith alone” and the other 2000 pages of the Bible are just padding. But anyway, once more, citing this passage again is an exercise in eisegesis, that “the word” = Scripture alone even though the verse says no such thing. And once again, the passage does not say (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority…

**Deuteronomy 8:3 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.
**See comment under Matthew 4:4.

**Joshua 8:8 When you have taken the city, set it on fire. Do what the Lord has commanded. See to it; you have my orders.”
**Again, reading sola scriptura into the text. Nowhere does it suggest a command from God can “only” come from “Scriptura”.

***Acts 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.
***This passage actually says “hear the word” which shows that the written form of God’s revelation is not the only method.

 

[B79]

Dear Haparker,

Please be assured that I write these things in charity. I looked up each passage you listed in support of ‘Sola Scriptura’ – none of them supports Luther’s theory. They do highlight the importance of God’s Word (Catholics agree with you there!) – but who says the Word is ONLY what’s written in the pages of the Bible? Such an assertion is quite beyond anything implied in those passages. Rather, the Word is someONE-- Jesus Christ (as described in the prologue to John’s Gospel – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” etc.). And Christ told the apostles the truth from God by His spoken word (“These things I SPEAK in the world…I have given them thy word” – John 17:13-14), and commanded the apostles to pass it along to others in the same fashion (“TEACH them to observe all that I have commanded you”–Matthew 28:20).

Of course, what we’re really talking about here is God’s Revelation, which came to us most perfectly in the Person of Jesus – a living, breathing human being whose word is trustworthy and critical to salvation… and which was passed along in spoken form before it was ever written down (they didn’t lack authority before they were written down!). Indeed, the Bible is simply that portion of “Tradition” which was written down. All the words spoken by Jesus as recorded in the Gospels were part of the oral Tradition before they became part of the written Tradition. The two supplement each other, neither standing without the other.

God bless you.

 

[haparker321]

You mean:

HIGHLY IRRATIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF SOLA SCRIPTURA

Sola Scriptura is not actually taught in Scripture…why not simply have ONE prophet devote ONE line of Scripture to state something like, “Scripture alone is to be the basis of formulating doctrine”?

Apart from your argument begging the question, I would like to add that the basis of Sola Scriptura comes from indirect implications. Hence, your objection is invalid.

In other words, in order to demonstrate why Sola Scriptura is true, one has to make arguments outside of Scripture.

This is another re-hash of the same argument above. See my response above.

Sola Scriptura is not self-evident.

Re-hash.

And yet the Jews have never gleaned Sola Scriptura from Scripture, nor taught it.

Oh, so pharisees had a legit basis to carry the traditions which Christ condemned, right?

Their stance on “Torah Only” led them to disbelieving in a resurrection and afterlife for humans; Jesus corrected them and thereby demonstrated disapproval of their “Torah Only” principle.

This is a non-sequitor.

Moreover, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have been around for approximately 2000 years, and yet neither the Catholic Church nor any of the various Orthodox Christian Churches have ever taught Sola Scriptura.

Paganism has been around for three millenia, does that mean it’s the correct church?

Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium

So it’s non-biblical because we don’t accept the Magisterium? Wow, amazing!

Yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept what books belong in the Bible (i.e., the Canons of the Old and New Testament).

That’s quite bogus.

Who told us that these books were not truly divinely inspired? God did. And how did God tell us? Through the Magisterium.

And what standards does the Magisterium use to determine Scripture?

[SIGN]THE SCRIPTURES![/SIGN]

But if one rejects that the Magisterium has the God-given authority to do such things, why believe in the Canons of the Old and New Testaments formulated by the Magisterium?

But that revolves around the assumption if the Magisterium does qualify as the authority ordained by God. So far, the Scriptures never instituted such an idea; it’s absent.

We have no original manuscript of any book in the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies, and so forth.

How does that disprove Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura has not proven useful in resolving doctrinal disputes among Protestants

What kind of disputes the essentials or not?

Over such topics as the Real Presence in the Eucharist…the necessity of water Baptism

Non-essentials, if we don’t agree doesn’t make us heretics because we don’t think eating or dipping someone the right way it will enhance our salvation.

Women pastors…homosexual marriage…divorce…abortion

Issues which result from people not taking Scriptural commands seriously, this by no means shows that Sola Scriptura is inefficient; just because you disobey authority does not mean the Bible is insufficient.

So far, you’ve raised objections and they all are irrelevant to the doctrine.

Parker

 

[The_Scott]

Oh, so pharisees had a legit basis to carry the traditions which Christ condemned, right?

Actually, yes.

"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.” – Matthew 23: 1-3

 

[The_Scott]

That’s quite bogus.

Enlighten me, O illustrious one. What did happen? Tell me: what was the Council of Rome, and who was Pope Damascus I?

 

[Farsight001]

Apart from your argument begging the question, I would like to add that the basis of Sola Scriptura comes from indirect implications. Hence, your objection is invalid.

First of all, I suggest you lose the mocking tone. The moderators can be very strict at times and they won’t hesitate to block you if you don’t at least attempt to sound charitable.

Second, you misunderstood the argument. They are pointing out that the very fact that sola scriptura is not in scripture is proof against it. What is sola scriptura? That the belief MUST be in the bible. But sola scriptura, itself a belief, is not in the bible. And yet, sola scriptura says that it must be to be authentic. Hence it is self contradictory and self defeating.

So it’s non-biblical because we don’t accept the Magisterium? Wow, amazing!

Yes, actually. Since the Magisterium is biblical and you reject the magisterium, you are not abiding by sola scriptura.

That’s quite bogus.

Not really. Bishops convened in the 4th century and officially defined what qualifies as scripture. It was by their authority that we even have a bible.

And what standards does the Magisterium use to determine Scripture?

[SIGN]THE SCRIPTURES![/SIGN]

Not at all. It would be impossible, actually, to use the scriptures to determine what qualifies as scripture. To use the scriptures, they have to already exist, but if they already exist, then the magisterium can’t determine what qualifies since some entity clearly already determined that. Rather, they use the guidance of God.

edit - and I remind you again that the burden of proof is on you, not us. You are making the positive assertion, and therefore, according to the dictates of logical discussion, it is on you to provide proof.

 

[DrPiano]

Apart from your argument begging the question, I would like to add that the basis of Sola Scriptura comes from indirect implications. Hence, your objection is invalid.

You have yet to show those “indirect implications” (which, by the way, I can show a lot of things by indirect implication from scripture but I bet you won’t believe them). Please walk us through your “indirect implications” very carefully - because I certainly do not see them in the verses you spewed in your first post.

Oh - and please don’t just send me to look up the verses. If you’re going to argue SS from “indirect implication”, you had better walk me through your thought process. Because what is evident to you by “indirect implication” is certainly not to me.

You’ve made the claim - so the burden is on you to prove it - using the rules you’ve set before us.

And - you really didn’t address the argument that proving SS (or for that matter the infalliability of scripture through scripture) is circular reasoning. You just said it wasn’t a good argument. But if I wrote a book that said “this book contains the Word of God, it is inspired and contains everything you need to know to get to heaven”, that would not guarantee that the book was, in fact, what it claimed to be. Case in point: the Koran claims divine inspiration (actually more than we do since the Koran claims to have been transcribed directly while pretty much all Christians agree that God used people to write down his message, but that it comes in a historical/literary context). The Book of Mormon also claims divine inspiration. And most books in the bible do not. So simply claiming divine inspiration does not divine inspiration make.

Oh, so pharisees had a legit basis to carry the traditions which Christ condemned, right?

Actually, Jesus said they absolutely had the authority (the legit basis) to teach:

Matthew 23:1-4
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
(emphasis mine)

Jesus nailed the Pharisees for being hypocrites (for not practicing what the preached), not for preaching in the first place. Not only that, but he actually told his disciples to do what the Pharisees taught. That’s very clear authority confirmed by Christ.

And what standards does the Magisterium use to determine Scripture?

[SIGN]THE SCRIPTURES![/SIGN]

Hmmm… Does it? Did the Magisterium look to a place in the written word of God to determine what books did and did not belong? If it did, please show us proof. I’d like the chapter and verse of the Bible that it’s in, followed by the appropriate passage from the appropriate church council declaring the canon of scripture.

Again - you’ve made the claim - it’s on you to prove it.

What kind of disputes the essentials or not?

Actually, there are plenty of disputes between Sola Scriptura adherents on “essentials.” I know because I grew up in an SS house as a Methodist and went to a Reformed College (CRC to be exact). Both my church and my college were SS adherents. And yet we had fundamental disagreements on the scope of Christ’s salvific sacrifice, the role of free will in our lives, the nature of grace, etc. I’ve had knock-down dragout fights on these as an SS adherent with other SS adherent - with both of us pointing to massive amounts of scripture to back up our claims. I had similar fights with the Once Saved Always Saved folks.

Why did I fight? Because it was important. It is utterly and completely important to know whether we have any free will or not. It’s utterly and completely important to know whether we’re just predestined to heaven or hell with no choice in the matter. It really matters. The whole of salvation hinges on it. Your salvation and mine. That’s why my dear friend and I argued. We were honestly concerned for the other.

So yes- there are lots of disputes on “essentials” even among SS adherents.

So far, you’ve raised objections and they all are irrelevant to the doctrine.

Actually, you have yet to make a clear case for SS. And since you set forward the positive claim of SS, it’s on you to prove it, not on us to disprove it.

 

[EricFilmer]

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. 
   Proverbs 30:5
   Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (RSV)
   
   First of all, “Every word of God” does not exclusively mean Scripture. Consider that the verbal proclamations of a prophet represent the word of God even if it never gets put down in writing. For example, when Jonah walked throughout Nineveh pronouncing the judgment of God upon the city, was he likewise pronouncing the word of God at that moment, or did his pronouncements not actually become the word of God until the Book of Jonah was eventually written at a later time?
   
   According to Catholics and Orthodox Christians, this verse from Proverbs applies to all of God’s revelation, which comes from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ.
   
   Secondly, if you believe that this verse implies Sola Scriptura, then consider the ramifications of the next verse: “Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” Therefore, based on this, we should not add any scripture beyond Proverbs 30, and would have to throw out everything in the Bible that was written after it. This means getting rid of a lot of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament!
   
   Hebrews 4:12
   For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (RSV)
   
   Here I place the same criticism I used above. “Word of God” refers to God’s revelation, which comes from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ. Nothing in this verse states that God’s word exclusively comes in written form. Also, if this verse implies Sola Scriptura then we would have to jettison everything in the Bible written after it. Note that it is possible that this letter predates the written form of all the gospels, so we would have to throw them out of the Bible.
   
   Matthew 4:4
   But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’.” (RSV)
   
   Jesus never taught that “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” is only found in the written format of Sacred Scripture. As I have said earlier, the word of God means what God reveals, which comes from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ.
   
   Also, it seems that Matthew himself did not think this verse taught Sola Scriptura. Otherwise, why did he take so long to write his gospel? The earliest date I’ve seen for it is the 50s, and it may have been written as late as the 90s.
   
   Deuteronomy 8:3
   …man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. (RSV)
   
   Once again, “everything that proceeds out of the mouth of God” does not exclusively mean “Sacred Scripture.” Also, if this verse actually does teach Sola Scriptura then we would have to throw out everything in the Bible that was written after it, including Joshua (and therefore Joshua 8:8 which you say implies Sola Scriptura) , Judges, the books of Kings, the books of Chronicles, the Psalms, Proverbs (and therefore Proverbs 30 which you say implies Sola Scriptura) all the books of the prophets and the entire New Testament.
   
   (Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

2 Timothy 3:16

First of all, Parker, you did not actually state why you feel this verse implies Sola Scriptura. But I have seen this argument enough to know that when 2Timothy 3:16 is mentioned by an adherent of Sola Scriptura, the usual argument goes like this: if “all Scripture” makes a person “complete” and “equipped for every good work” then a Christian need not turn to anything else (such as Sacred Tradition). Therefore, believing in Sacred Tradition puts someone in opposition to what Paul wrote in 2Timothy 3:16.

But is this a correct interpretation of 2Timothy 3:16? No. Objectively speaking, it is impossible for this passage from Paul’s letter to support Sola Scriptura. Here’s why:

1) Paul does not say “only” Scripture.

2) Also in 2Timothy (this time from 2:21-26) Paul states that purifying oneself from “what is ignoble” makes one “ready for any good work.” So, like in 2Timothy 3:16, Paul is telling Timothy how a person is equipped, or ready, for good works. But when Paul describes (in 2Timothy 2:21-26) how a person is purified from being ignoble, he does not mention the use of Scripture. Instead he talks about shunning youthful passions, aiming at righteousness, faith, love and peace, avoiding senseless controversies, not being quarrelsome, being kind and gentle, etc.

3) In 2Corinthians 9:8, Paul states, “And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.” So, like in 2Timothy 3:16, Paul writes about what provides for “every good work.” But in this passage from 2Corinthians, Paul does not mention Scripture, but instead points out that the blessings of God are what provide for every good work. Obviously God can bestow his blessings on us independent from Scripture, can he not?

In light of all this, what Paul must be saying in 2Timothy 3:16 is that what “equips us for every good work” is teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, for which all Scripture is profitable. And, in the context of everything Paul wrote, many other things aside from Scripture are profitable for this as well, such as refraining from what is ignoble and blessings from God. By considering all this biblical evidence, Paul cannot truly be teaching people that the Bible is the only source of authoritative Christian teaching, and therefore Paul does not teach Sola Scriptura in 2Timothy 3:16.

Josuha 8:8

And when you have taken the city, you shall set the city on fire, doing as the Lord has bidden; see, I have commanded you. (RSV)

In terms of this verse, you stated, “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.”

I agree that we should follow what God says, but you have yet to prove that God’s word exclusively means Sacred Scripture. Also, keep in mind that when God revealed his instructions to Joshua concerning the conquest of the City of Ai (which is what Joshua 8:8 is in reference to), God spoke to Joshua (i.e., Joshua 8:1 – “And the Lord said to Joshua…”). God did not have someone commit these instructions to Sacred Scripture and then had Joshua read it.

Acts 13:44

The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God. (RSV)

As I have said before, “word of God” does not mean exclusively Sacred Scripture. It refers to all that God reveals, which comes from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[ignatius777]

You just don’t like the idea because you can’t prove the idea is unbiblical.

Parker

its unbiblical because no where in scripture does it suggest sola scriptura. sorry

 

[pablope]

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

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

*]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

Well, I have seen a lot of threads on SS, but I have never (as far as I can recall) seen a definition from Martin Luther, how he described or practiced it. Do you have anything from your grandfather ML regarding SS?

 

[WesleyF]

Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority

Yes, because it cannot tell us who the church is. Which church? Consider this hypothetical dialogue.

A - “The universal body of believers”

B - “who exactly is a believer and not a believer?”

A - “Well, he who is in line with the scriptures is a true believer”

B - “But who decides who is in line with the scriptures and who is not?”

A - “Well, the scriptures can help us decide that. See the scripture says… (insert private interpretation)”.

B - “Hey, but** I** don’t think that’s what the scripture says. I think the scripture says …(insert private interpretation).”

Ultimately, there is no such thing as “church authority” but “self-authority”, in that I myself look up the scriptures and decide whether what the church (whatever church that might be) is in line with the scriptures or not.That’s the problem.

Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition

You have worded it in an interesting way - scriptural tradition. Strictly speaking, Sola Scriptura would not deny scriptural tradition if it could only tell us who decides what is and is not scriptural tradition.

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.

Yes, the Word of God is sufficient. But Catholics understand the Word of God to mean both the word that was transmitted orally and the written word (1 Thess 2:13, 2 Thess 2:15). The onus to prove his point is therefore on the person who asserts that scripture only is the Word of God.

 

[EricFilmer]

You mean:

HIGHLY IRRATIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF SOLA SCRIPTURA

Well, let us see exactly how rational you conducted your rebuttal to them…

Apart from your argument begging the question, I would like to add that the basis of Sola Scriptura comes from indirect implications. Hence, your objection is invalid.

Exactly how does my argument “beg the question”? Also, consider your definition of Sola Scriptura:

“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.”

How can a principle of this magnitude, which is used to test the validity of all Christian doctrines, only be wrought from “indirect implications”? Why wouldn’t God explicitly state it like he did with the Ten Commandments? Why does it have to be drawn out from certain vague Bible passages here and there like a hidden riddle? So such questions are “irrational”, huh?

This is another re-hash of the same argument above. See my response above.

You’re dodging what I actually presented in my objection, so this is not a good start in terms of discerning how rational your rebuttal is. You have to clearly explain why it is ok for Sola Scriptura to fail its own test for doctrinal validity. In other words, why is it not reasonable to assume that the use of “Scripture alone” ought to be enough to prove the validity of something that teaches us to use “Scripture alone”?

Re-hash

Another dodge. If Sola Scriptura is self-evident, clearly explain why it was virtually unknown until the Protestant Reformation. Nothing you have stated so far even comes close to addressing this, so there was no “hash” to “re-hash.”

Oh, so pharisees had a legit basis to carry the traditions which Christ condemned, right?

That’s not the topic, so once more you are dodging the material from my objection. You have stated that some of the passages in the Old Testament imply Sola Scriptura. Therefore, clearly explain why the Jews have never gleaned Sola Scriptura in all the many centuries of reading the Old Testament.

This is a non-sequitor.

No, it is just simply means that the closest thing we have to Jews practicing Sola Scriptura are the Sadducees’ concept of “Torah Only”, and clearly they shouldn’t have placed such a limitation on God’s revelation. As a side note, the term “non sequitur” means, “does not follow.” Clearly explain why my statement fits this assessment. Otherwise this is yet again another attempt to dodge the actual material from my objection.

EricFilmer;7840181:

Moreover, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have been around for approximately 2000 years, and yet neither the Catholic Church nor any of the various Orthodox Christian Churches have ever taught Sola Scriptura.

Paganism has been around for three millenia, does that mean it’s the correct church?

And yet another dodge! That’s 5 so far in a single post!!! Out of curiosity, what’s your record?

Moreover, you’ve committed a straw man fallacy here. Seeing as you falsely stated I did such a thing in the other thread, this is a good opportunity to point out what a straw man fallacy actually is. What I stated was that neither the Catholic Church nor any of the various Orthodox Churches discerned Sola Scriptura in the course of two millennia of reading the Bible. But instead of addressing this you chose to address something I did not say. After all, your above quote suggests that I was saying that the 2000-year history of Catholicism and Orthodoxy signifies them as being “correct” Churches, and because I said nothing about what constitutes a correct church, this is the straw man you set up. Now that we have gotten this straw man business out of the way, how about addressing the actual material of my objection?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

So it’s non-biblical because we don’t accept the Magisterium? Wow, amazing!

My statement was a lead-in to my next one; you need to “wait for it.” As for your comment above, Sola Scriptura is non-biblical for the simple fact that it is not in the Bible.

That’s quite bogus.

Really? And yet you completely cherry-picked around my explanation that supported my statement. Is this your idea of an honest, intellectual debate? To engage in cherry-picking and declaring something to be “bogus” without one word to explain why it is so? Therefore, clearly explain why the concept is bogus. Or am I to simply presume that your unsubstantiated opinion is the litmus test of reality?

I mentioned the Book of Enoch so let us examine it in more detail. Many of the ancient Jews and the ancient Christians believed that the Book of Enoch was divinely inspired. Therein we see the following:

“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgment upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (Enoch 1:9)

This is actually quoted in the New Testament in the Letter of Jude:

“It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’.” (Jude 1:14-15)

So my question to you is, do you accept the Book of Enoch as divinely inspired? And if so, why, and if not, why not?

As far as I am concerned, the Book of Enoch is not divinely inspired because the Magisterium made this determination when compiling the Canon of the Old Testament. But seeing as you claim that such a notion is "bogus” then I want you to present your own argument for or against the authenticity of the Book of Enoch.

And incidentally, there are a lot more books out there that many ancient Jews and Christians thought were divinely inspired, but were excluded from the canons of Scripture due to the action of the Magisterium. I’m just using the Book of Enoch as one of many possible examples.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

And what standards does the Magisterium use to determine Scripture?

[SIGN]THE SCRIPTURES![/SIGN]

The Magisterium used the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine the canons for the Old and New Testament within the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. I clearly stated this in my post, and once more you cherry-picked around it.

And contrary to your statement, the Scriptures are not sufficient to tell us what is and is not divinely inspired. For example:

The Bible does not tell us what books belong in the Bible.

The only method recorded in the Bible for discerning whether or not a written text was divinely inspired is found in 2Kings 22:8-20. King Josiah had to make the decision whether or not to promulgate the Book of Deuteronomy among the Jewish people. The only method that is described in this undertaking was asking the Prophetess Huldah. Huldah, in turn, was divinely inspired to state that Deuteronomy was divinely inspired. This indicates that the ancient Jews had no other official means for making such a determination. It is also worth noting that Huldah did not give them a formula to use for determining whether or not any particular book is authentic Scripture (nor did Moses or anyone else in the past), she only informed them that Deuteronomy (specifically) was. So when the question of the authenticity of a proposed book comes up, it is handy to have a prophet. But true prophets are not always around. The prophetic Spirit, however was at work within the Magisterium at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage when the canons for the Old and New Testament were spelled out. The prophetic Spirit is still with the Magisterium today, as has been the case throughout the ages of Christianity.

But that revolves around the assumption if the Magisterium does qualify as the authority ordained by God. So far, the Scriptures never instituted such an idea; it’s absent.

It was instituted by Christ himself, and is expressed in Matthew 16:19 and John 21:15-17.

EricFilmer;7840181:

We have no original manuscript of any book in the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies, and so forth.

How does that disprove Sola Scriptura?

This specific part of my assessment does not necessarily disprove Sola Scriptura, but rather bolsters the idea that all Christians, including you, are reliant upon the Magisterium to tell you what is and is not Sacred Scripture. For example, if you do not believe that the Magisterium has the authority to discern the authenticity of Sacred Scripture then explain why you believe the text within your Bible is a faithful representation of what the original Scriptures say. After all, the original texts for all the books of the Bible have been lost since ancient times, so how can you make a comparison?

What kind of disputes the essentials or not?

I’m not quite sure what you are asking. I said “doctrinal disputes” so that, by definition, means essential matters of the faith.

Non-essentials, if we don’t agree doesn’t make us heretics because we don’t think eating or dipping someone the right way it will enhance our salvation.

These most certainly are essential topics of the faith. For example, in order to be a faithful community of the Southern Baptist Convention, your church cannot have a woman minister because they believe the Bible forbids it. Some Protestants believe that a water baptism is required for salvation and others don’t – another essential topic. In this link, the topic of Baptism is being debated by Protestants who both believe in Sola Scriptura, and yet have opposite views concerning the necessity of Baptism: youtube.com/watch?v=U56SIZL_URc

Issues which result from people not taking Scriptural commands seriously, this by no means shows that Sola Scriptura is inefficient; just because you disobey authority does not mean the Bible is insufficient.

So when Protestants agree with your personal interpretation of Scripture, they are faithfully adhering to Sola Scriptura, but if they don’t then they aren’t taking “Scriptural commands seriously”? Sounds like you’re setting yourself up to be your own kind of Magisterium. Going back to that video link I just gave, how about telling me which side in the debate represents people taking “Scriptural commands seriously”, and which side “disobeys authority.”

So far, you’ve raised objections and they all are irrelevant to the doctrine.

Parker

If my objections are so irrelevant then why did you continually dodge them instead of directly addressing what I posted? And what was with all the cherry-picking?

For example, I pointed out that in the collective 4000-year history of Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, there have been literally billions of Scripture-using people who never discerned Sola Scriptura from Scripture, nor taught it. You never came even close to refuting the rationality behind this obvious critique of the principle of Sola Scriptura. So if you believe that such a statement is not relevant, clearly explain why instead of just saying “It’s irrelevant” and expecting everyone to simply take your word for it.

 

[praxising]

You just don’t like the idea because you can’t prove the idea is unbiblical.

Parker

LOL! You mean the way you can’t “prove” it is?

But it doesn’t need some esoteric arcane lengthy discourse, it’s pretty simple: Christianity precedes the Bible. That’s just a fact.

All the ideas around Sola Scriptura are illogical and false on their face. Doesn’t matter what you think you are doing, you’ve never read the actual Scripture. so you can’t depend on it, solely or otherwise.

I doubt you read both ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek fluently, if you did, you still won’t understand all the idioms because you can’t go back in time. Any Bible you pick up by necessity requires you to believe in some translators you never met using documents based on other copyists and influenced by the way the chapters are sectioned, which they were not originally.

There’s no such thing as Sola Scriptura, literally. What you think you depend on is not at all the words printed on paper, what you depend on is always someone’s interpretation of what they read. Your pastor’s, your commentators, yourself.

What concerns me about this whole fantasy people hold in a kind of groupthink of denial, is that it leads someplace really dangerous: it leads to idolatry: worship of a book.

Sola Deus et Ecclesia

 

[po18guy]

You mean

I like a feisty one that is up to a challenge! What you assert, by claiming bible alone is that Jesus is a failure. He failed to write any scripture at all. He failed to command each of the Apostles to write their own bibles. He failed to produce His own bible. He failed to bring a bible with Him. He failed to leave a bible when He ascended. He even failed to tell the scripture writers to include in their writing that their command to write scripture was from God. He failed to tell them to write that their own writing was inspired. He failed to tell them what the Sacred Table of Contents should be. He failed, failed, failed. Can this be what you really think of our Lord?

Oh, Luke and Paul tell of the value of and the need for retaining the oral paradosis (Greek: tradition). But, you seem to claim that you know better than Luke or Paul

 

[hapaxparadidoma]

Re: Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

You assert that it is biblical, but can you prove it is biblical? Where is your proof?

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:
Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

What if church authority’s interpretation disagrees with mine?
What if I think the church’s tradition is unscriptural?

Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

What do you mean by “the word of God speaking at one point or another”?