Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[JonNC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I think 2 Thess 2:15 makes your wishfull thinking null and void.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]

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

God’s word is immutable. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Those words penned by Paul almost 2,000 years ago are just as valid today as they were when the ink was still wet. 2Thess 2:15 is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire.

Originally Posted by JonNC
As sola scriptura does not exclude tradition, I’m at a loss how this is the case.

Not at all. The sola in sola scriptura means that scripture alone is the final norm, by which all teachers and teachings are held accountable. It doesn;t exclude tradition, it holds it accountable to scripture.

The sola in sola scriptura does not and should not exclude tradition, but in fat embraces tradition that rightly reflects scripture. For example, the ecumenical creeds are not explicitly written in scripture, but because they rightly reflect scripture, they are a tradition that Lutherans embrace. In fact, they make up the first section of the Lutheran Confessions, before anything written by Luther or Melanchthon, or any of the other Lutheran reformers.

Lutherans embrace the first 6 councils, and essentially the 7th (with regards iconoclasm)
because they rightly reflect scripture.

A good example of how sola scriptura works is Article X of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which 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.

Here, Melanchthon defends the doctrine of the real presence in three ways. First by scripture, where he references Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16. He follows by referencing the Church, both east and west, followed by the Vulgarius and Cyril, defending them further with scripture.
This is the practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Not at all. The sola in sola scriptura means that scripture alone is the final norm, by which all teachers and teachings are held accountable. It doesn;t exclude tradition, it holds it accountable to scripture.

Well then you got it backwards. You see the original test, way back in the fourth century when the canon was being determined, was whether a writing supported the Oral Tradition of the Church, If it did it was included in the canon. If it did not then it was excluded. So what we now call scripture passed the test of being held accountable to the Oral Tradition.

Well I will disagree with you. The Trinity is understood by you and me, not in terms derived from scripture but rather by terms borrowed from Greek philosophy. Nowhere in scripture or even Jewish philosopjhical thought is there the concepts of substance and essence that the Doctrine of the Trinity uses. The Nicene Creed also uses the Greek term *homooúsios * meaning of the same essence. In Scripture there is no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The Liberal Protestantism of today contends that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth. Thus even your sola scriptura buddies disagree with you. You, no doubt have heard of the Unitarians who assert that those scripture passages which you claim support the Trinity really support their doctrine of one God expressing Himself in different modes. They reject what you accept and do so using the same scriptures that you do. So how can you tell me that the doctrine of the Trinity which you accept reflects scripture? The fact is that the Doctrine of the Trinity as you and I understand and accept it is a product of the teaching authority of the church independant of but not contradictory to the scriptures.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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.

Actually, the Bible does teach sola scriptura. Many passages show us that those who used scripture to state doctrines did so on the basis that scripture not only had the highest normative authority but that nothing else like tradition or the religious leaders had an equal authority to scripture. Sola scriptura is simply the theological presupposition of everyone who said, “it is written.” Even Satan attempts to appeal to that same principle in order to win an argument with Jesus. So yes–Scripture does teach sola scriptura. But no–it doesn’t have to in order for it to be true. Nor is sola scirptura true simply because scripture teaches it. Sola scriptura is true because God’s word is true. The truth of the principle has its origin in God.

I don’t think Catholics disagree with this in principle–i.e., that there is no higher authority than God’s word. They just insist that God’s word is a larger category than scripture–that it includes tradition and the “living” teaching authority of the magisterium. Protestants counter that because Tradition–as defined by Rome–includes doctrines that contradict scripture–and because Tradition has been thus errantly defined by the magisterium–that scripture is the only access we have to God’s word today. Sola scriptura–as historically understood by Protestants–is not the denial that God’s word has existed orally at one time. But the oral proclamation of his word that God wished to preserve for posterity always culminates in scripture. Sola scriptura, then, is sort of the default position that emerges when the other two legs of the stool have collapsed. If the Church has erred, and if erroneous traditions have been defined as dogma, then scripture is all that remains. 3-2 = 1. Its really that simple.

I believe a number of the church fathers (especially Cyril of Jerusalem) and scholastics held to the view that scripture had the highest normative authority. Many of these, however, would have also believed that the Church and Tradition were all part of the rule of faith simply because they had presumed that the Church’s teaching was an accurate expression of the truths of scripture–not because they thought of the bishops or the pope or something called “Tradition,” as being on par with scripture. But that’s a topic for another thread.

If we attempt to prove sola scriptura by assuming sola scirptura, we beg the question. Principles can’t prove themselves. Since sola sciptura is a principle–that is a starting point–then it is the beginning point from which doctrines are derived.

Assume, for a moment, that your counter-example were true. If God had designated a biblical prophet to say, “sola scriptura is true”…or words to that effect, what would that prove? One would only know to take the prophet’s word for it because one already knew that one is supposed to listen to the words of the prophets that are recorded in scripture. Such a hypothetical verse would provide us with no new information since we would have already had the notion in place that scripture–as Gods word–is our highest authority.

I have to stop here…would love to get back to your other points as time permits. (And I have very little of that these days.)

Cheers.

 

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;7918093]
Well then you got it backwards. You see the original test, way back in the fourth century when the canon was being determined, was whether a writing supported the Oral Tradition of the Church, If it did it was included in the canon. If it did not then it was excluded. So what we now call scripture passed the test of being held accountable to the Oral Tradition.

I never for a moment thought I’d change your mind about sola scriptura, but you asked if I
was denying the sola part of sola scriptura. And, as you can see, I am not.

Well I will disagree with you. The Trinity is understood by you and me, not in terms derived from scripture but rather by terms borrowed from Greek philosophy. Nowhere in scripture or even Jewish philosopjhical thought is there the concepts of substance and essence that the Doctrine of the Trinity uses. The Nicene Creed also uses the Greek term *homooúsios * meaning of the same essence. In Scripture there is no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together.

Trying to claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is not supported by scripture is an interesting approach, but there are numerous scripture passages, when linked together, clearly support the doctrine.

The Liberal Protestantism of today contends that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth. Thus even your sola scriptura buddies disagree with you. You, no doubt have heard of the Unitarians who assert that those scripture passages which you claim support the Trinity really support their doctrine of one God expressing Himself in different modes. They reject what you accept and do so using the same scriptures that you do. So how can you tell me that the doctrine of the Trinity which you accept reflects scripture? The fact is that the Doctrine of the Trinity as you and I understand and accept it is a product of the teaching authority of the church independant of but not contradictory to the scriptures.

They can disagree with me all they want, and its irrelevent to me. What’s your point, other than to apparantly agree with me that sola scriptura does not exclude tradition? If you wish to come to the conclusion that the doctrine simply doesn’t contradict scripture, fine. There certainly seems enough in scripture to support it.

Jon

 

[Tiberius1701]

Actually, the Bible does teach sola scriptura. Many passages show us that those who used scripture to state doctrines did so on the basis that scripture not only had the highest normative authority but that nothing else like tradition or the religious leaders had an equal authority to scripture. Sola scriptura is simply the theological presupposition of everyone who said, “it is written.” Even Satan attempts to appeal to that same principle in order to win an argument with Jesus. So yes–Scripture does teach sola scriptura. But no–it doesn’t have to in order for it to be true. Nor is sola scirptura true simply because scripture teaches it. Sola scriptura is true because God’s word is true. The truth of the principle has its origin in God.

So, you’re only specifically biblical evidence for your first point about SS is that Satan used it??? That my friend is the best Scriptural support for the rejection of SS that I have ever heard, and you think it supports it!? Wow. That’s just… wow. Are you even listening to yourself here, Miguel? You just cited the Devil as a credible example of why SS is biblical and how it should be used. Wow…

 

[inkaneer]

Actually, the Bible does teach sola scriptura. Many passages show us that those who used scripture to state doctrines did so on the basis that scripture not only had the highest normative authority but that nothing else like tradition or the religious leaders had an equal authority to scripture. Sola scriptura is simply the theological presupposition of everyone who said, “it is written.” Even Satan attempts to appeal to that same principle in order to win an argument with Jesus. So yes–Scripture does teach sola scriptura. But no–it doesn’t have to in order for it to be true. Nor is sola scirptura true simply because scripture teaches it. Sola scriptura is true because God’s word is true. The truth of the principle has its origin in God.

You know you don’t have to look real hard to find that is not the case. A good case is the Council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts 15. The issue before the council was whether Paul or the Judiacizers were correct. The Judiacizers were basing their assertions on scripture whereas Paul was preaching the gospel which only existed as oral Tradition at the time. So what did the Apostles decide? In their own words as recorded in scripture they said:

“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:” [Acts 15:28 RSV]

Notice the Apostles did not appeal to scripture as their authority but rather claimed divine inspiration directly from the Holy Spirit. The sola scripturists were the Judiacizers!!!

How about the Trinity as defined by the councils of the fourth century? You and I both understand the Trinity as defined by these councils using Greek philosophical terms that appear nowhere in scripture. If we were to go by scripture alone we would probably be Modalists of some sort. But we would not think of terms like person, substance or essence that we use in our understanding the Trinity.

 

[paul_c]

Actually, the Bible does teach sola scriptura. Many passages show us that those who used scripture to state doctrines did so on the basis that scripture not only had the highest normative authority but that nothing else like tradition or the religious leaders had an equal authority to scripture. Sola scriptura is simply the theological presupposition of everyone who said, “it is written.” Even Satan attempts to appeal to that same principle in order to win an argument with Jesus. So yes–Scripture does teach sola scriptura. But no–it doesn’t have to in order for it to be true. Nor is sola scirptura true simply because scripture teaches it. Sola scriptura is true because God’s word is true. The truth of the principle has its origin in God.

Matthew 4, which you reference in terms of Satan using scripture to temp Jesus, clearly teaches that scripture alone can be distorted. Peter makes this abundantly clear in 2Peter 3.

I don’t think Catholics disagree with this in principle–i.e., that there is no higher authority than God’s word. They just insist that God’s word is a larger category than scripture–that it includes tradition and the “living” teaching authority of the magisterium. Protestants counter that because Tradition–as defined by Rome–includes doctrines that contradict scripture–and because Tradition has been thus errantly defined by the magisterium–that scripture is the only access we have to God’s word today. Sola scriptura–as historically understood by Protestants–is not the denial that God’s word has existed orally at one time. But the oral proclamation of his word that God wished to preserve for posterity always culminates in scripture. Sola scriptura, then, is sort of the default position that emerges when the other two legs of the stool have collapsed. If the Church has erred, and if erroneous traditions have been defined as dogma, then scripture is all that remains. 3-2 = 1. Its really that simple.

Its not that Tradition contradicts scripture - it does not. - scripture is a subset of Tradition. It simply contradicts what YOU erroneously think scripture says. Why, pray tell, would Jesus allow the church to fail when he said he would be with it to the end of the age and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. For you to be right, Jesus would have had to be wrong. I put my trust in HIM.

I believe a number of the church fathers (especially Cyril of Jerusalem) and scholastics held to the view that scripture had the highest normative authority. Many of these, however, would have also believed that the Church and Tradition were all part of the rule of faith simply because they had presumed that the Church’s teaching was an accurate expression of the truths of scripture–not because they thought of the bishops or the pope or something called “Tradition,” as being on par with scripture. But that’s a topic for another thread.

And why wouldn’t they believe that the Church’s teaching was an accurate expression of the Gospel - after all the Church was commissioned by Jesus to spread the Gospel and baptize all nations (Matthew 28: 18-20). It it and has always been the Church’s role to do these things. When people oppose the Church, they are opposing the will of Jesus.

If we attempt to prove sola scriptura by assuming sola scirptura, we beg the question. Principles can’t prove themselves. Since sola sciptura is a principle–that is a starting point–then it is the beginning point from which doctrines are derived.

How was sola scripture a starting point. Scripture recorded, AFTER THE FACT, what happened. It was never a starting point.

Assume, for a moment, that your counter-example were true. If God had designated a biblical prophet to say, “sola scriptura is true”…or words to that effect, what would that prove? One would only know to take the prophet’s word for it because one already knew that one is supposed to listen to the words of the prophets that are recorded in scripture. Such a hypothetical verse would provide us with no new information since we would have already had the notion in place that scripture–as Gods word–is our highest authority.

I have to stop here…would love to get back to your other points as time permits. (And I have very little of that these days.)

Cheers.

If scripture is so important, why didn’t Jesus write a book?

 

[Tiberius1701]

You know you don’t have to look real hard to find that is not the case. A good case is the Council of Jerusalem depicted in Acts 15. The issue before the council was whether Paul or the Judiacizers were correct. The Judiacizers were basing their assertions on scripture whereas Paul was preaching the gospel which only existed as oral Tradition at the time. So what did the Apostles decide? In their own words as recorded in scripture they said:

“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:” [Acts 15:28 RSV]

Notice the Apostles did not appeal to scripture as their authority but rather claimed divine inspiration directly from the Holy Spirit. The sola scripturists were the Judiacizers!!!

How about the Trinity as defined by the councils of the fourth century? You and I both understand the Trinity as defined by these councils using Greek philosophical terms that appear nowhere in scripture. If we were to go by scripture alone we would probably be Modalists of some sort. But we would not think of terms like person, substance or essence that we use in our understanding the Trinity.

And don’t forget the way Jesus taught: “You have heard it said…” (i.e. you’re heard read to you in the Temple and in the synagogs the Word that was given to your fathers from God), “but I say to you…” (i.e. I, the Living Word of the Living God, give you a new, oral teaching that adds to oral teachings of old). He didn’t say, “You have heard the Pharisees say on their own authority… but it is written in the sole, authoritative Word of God.” No, He said, “I say to you…” And then He gave His disciples the same authority from the same Father who’d given it to Him, “Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven…” That’s not a throw-away line. That means they, the Apostles - not words on a page, but men - have the authority of God Himself. And they knew it, for, again, they never said, “Whoever reads what we write, reads the Word of God.” No. They said, “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this”, not by reading and interpretting for ourselves, “we know the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error” (I John 4:6). “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (II Peter 1:20), rather it is a matter of the interpretation of the Teaching Authority of the Church which Christ founded on the Apostles through the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised only to them and their successors, the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

 

[Algo1]

I think 2 Thess 2:15 makes your wishfull thinking null and void.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]

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

God’s word is immutable. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Those words penned by Paul almost 2,000 years ago are just as valid today as they were when the ink was still wet. 2Thess 2:15 is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire.

In Galatians 1:14, Paul makes reference to ‘the traditions of my fathers’ and in Colossians 2:8, ‘the tradition of men’. Charles Hodge notes that Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8 are references ‘to what is human and untrustworthy…and frequently in the gospels of the elders.’

Only in the remaining three instances (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), where the noun (paradosis) appears, do we find binding Christian tradition in the New Testament. In each of these, the apostle makes reference to authoritative apostolic tradition which he had ‘delivered’ (1 Cor. 11:2), ‘taught’ (2 Thess. 2:15), or ‘commanded’ (2 Thess. 3:6).

In all three cases, the tradition(s) to which he referred could be objectively identified by his readers.

These traditions were not something awaiting the future development of a living voice because, firstly, they had already been ‘delivered’ to the Corinthians who were ‘keeping’ them (1 Cor. 11:2), and secondly, they had already been ‘taught’ to the Thessalonians who were commanded to ‘stand fast’ in them and ‘hold them’ (2 Thess. 2:15). Thirdly, they were commanded to ‘walk’ according to them, clearly indicating that the Thessalonians were already acquainted with them (2 Thess. 3:6).

This being the case, not one of these texts supports the modern Roman view that ‘tradition’ in the New Testament can refer to a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or unidentified dogma awaiting future definition.

Why? Because the Church was already in possession of these traditions. They were already ‘keeping’ them, ‘holding’ them, and ‘walking’ in them.

The verbs used to describe the relationship of these traditions to Christian observance make no sense unless they had already been identified and defined. Every reference to ‘tradition’ in these passages has to do with doctrinal or moral rules already delivered.

David T. King p.112 Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. I

 

[Tiberius1701]

David T. King p.112 Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. I

I must say, I just love the way he not only carefully twists Scripture to avoid any possible reference to a Living Tradition within his book’s pages (because, if Sacred Tradition is living and active, then that might mean that “the House of God, the Church of the Living God” , might also be living and active - that reality would just be far too scary for someone who squarely rejects the Church of the Living God as nothing more than phantasmic), but, in its title, also carefully avoids even allowing the visible Body of Christ, which Holy Scripture actually says is the “Ground and Pillar” not only “of Our Faith,” as he puts it, but moreover of “The Truth,” as the Bible actually puts it, to be mentioned in that same phrase that he so carefully excised from Scripture with a tweezer, so as to remove it safely from its dangerous, SS-uprooting, minefield of a biblical context: namely “the House of God, the Church of the Living God”. That carefully twisted title just declares, from the outset, exactly how straightforward and honest he plans to be about the Holy and Immutable (that’s unchangeable a.k.a. un-mix-up-able, for those who don’t have their dictionaries handy) Word of God (i.e. not very).

 

[guanophore]

Sola Scriputura clearly came out of the Reformation, which of course was after the invention and propagation of the printing press. The reformation leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwigli, etc) denied the authority of the Catholic Church most vigorously, but without its teaching authority they had no link back to Christ other than the bible which in their arrogance, they felt they could intepret better than the Catholic Church which produced it.

Whenever Bible Christians bring up that the CC tried to keep the Bible from the faithful, it is always good to point out that the printing press was invented by a Catholic, and the first book he printed on it was the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

Now lo and behold! The primary differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants is this:

[sign]**For Protestants, the Bible is assumed to the be inerrant Word of God while Catholics deny that this ever was the claim. **[/sign]

Don’t be silly, haparker. This is one of the Catholic Teachings that our separated brethren have not yet abandoned! If you are going to argue with Catholics, why not argue about what we actually believe, instead of these ridiculous fantasies.

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

Now, if I were to assume the Bible is not the word of God, but a conveyor of what God said, then of course we would have to assume that Scriptures are insufficient and we would believe the infallible Magisterium concept (i.e. Sola Scriptura is un-biblical because it falsely assumes the Bible to be the Word of God). However, because we assume differently, we now understand why the Catholic Church is where she stands.

Parker

This is absurd Parker. You are basically making any point you are forwarding invalid, basing it upon false premises. I am disappointed in you for forwarding these fallacies. Did your mother never teach you that it is a sin to bear false witness against a neighbor?

Forgive me, but I have not read the rest of the thread yet. If this has already been posted I apologize

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Matthew 4, which you reference in terms of Satan using scripture to temp Jesus, clearly teaches that scripture alone can be distorted. Peter makes this abundantly clear in 2Peter 3.

Sure it can. But the abuse of a principle doesn’t negate it’s use. (Abusus non tollit usus). In other words, sola scriptura was never the claim that everyone was going to agree on the interpretation of scripture. But it is the claim that everyone ought to agree that scripture is what finally decides the matter.

Its not that Tradition contradicts scripture - it does not. - scripture is a subset of Tradition.

I grant that you believe that Tradition and Scripture can be harmonized. If I thought that were true, I’d be a Catholic. But for those of us who believe Tradition, as Rome defines it, has contradicted scripture, then the only recourse left to us is scripture. In other words, if you believed that the church had erred and defined false teachings as binding on the conscience of the believer, then you’re only logical move is take refuge in scripture.

Why, pray tell, would Jesus allow the church to fail when he said he would be with it to the end of the age and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

I don’t see Jesus’s promise to his church and the fact that the church of Rome can fall into error as problematic. The church in Sardis and Ephesus and many others (see Revelation 1-3) all fell into error as well. But Jesus–the Faithful and Ture–called them back to repentance. The Church as whole, which is Christ’s body, over which he is the head, is indefectible. That’s really as far as you can push the passages you cited since the don’t actually say, “the Church can’t error.” That’s an inference you draw–but a completely unnecessary one. All it need mean is that the church won’t fail.

The fact of the matter is that he gave the church scripture so that the truth of his word would alway remain stable. Providence has supplied us with more than enough manuscript evidence for us to be extremely confident in the text we have. So we do have a stable norm that is more than enough to know the truths God has revealed and it contains everything we need to know for salvation.

That said, it simply doesn’t follow that because Jesus promised that the church would ultimately triumph that a particular church couldn’t fall into error. My goodness, Paul, your own namesake apostle warned the Roman church precisely this in his letter to them! In fact, he warned them that they could be “cut off.” Isn’t it at least possible that this happened? Jesus warns churches that he’ll spit them out of his mouth and take away their lamp stand. But that doesn’t mean the Church as a whole thereby fails.

I think you may be guilty here of some either/or thinking. Either the Church and its Tradition are infallible or Christ lied. Seek the tertium quid, Paul. There really is a plausible alternative to the false dichotomy you’re preaching here.

How was sola scripture a starting point.

That’s a misrepresentation of what I said–that or you’re just not understanding. When I said “principles” are starting points. The root word of principle means “beginning.” In philosophy and theology, a principle is the starting point from which we derive particular doctrines. Scripture is that starting point and scripture itself gives witness to that fact. Nothing else in your Rule of Faith (i.e, Tradition or the Magisterium) has anything like scripture’s authority, as far as scripture is concerned. “You err,” said Jesus, not because you don’t know “the Magisterium” or “Tradition,” but because you don’t know “the Scriptures.” Paul told the Corinthians “not beyond what is written,” by which he specifically warned them not to elevate church leaders (such as Apollos, Paul, Cephas) beyond the authority and boundaries of scripture. The Roman Catholic Church, I’m afraid, has ignored that completely by elevating Peter and his alleged successors way beyond the boundaries Paul sets.

If scripture is so important, why didn’t Jesus write a book?

Are you saying scripture is unimportant because he didn’t write a book?

 

[Tiberius1701]

Don’t be silly, haparker. This is one of the Catholic Teachings that our separated brethren have not yet abandoned! If you are going to argue with Catholics, why not argue about what we actually believe, instead of these ridiculous fantasies.

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

This is absurd Parker. You are basically making any point you are forwarding invalid, basing it upon false premises. I am disappointed in you for forwarding these fallacies. Did your mother never teach you that it is a sin to bear false witness against a neighbor?

Forgive me, but I have not read the rest of the thread yet. If this has already been posted I apologize

Don’t worry about it. It was said, but it bears repeating and I like the way you said it anyway.

 

[RobbyS]

Whenever Bible Christians bring up that the CC tried to keep the Bible from the faithful, it is always good to point out that the printing press was invented by a Catholic, and the first book he printed on it was the Bible.

The Reformation was basically a revolt against authority. The Reformers invoke the Scriptures but also appeal to the Spirit as the Supreme Authority and themselves as the true ministers of the Spirit. In effect they arrogate to themselves as Bible Scholars the authority they deny to the Hierarchy. We have seen in our own age how biblical scholars are led by their own learning --much of which they owe to liberal Protestants–into a rejection of the magisterium.

 

[RobbyS]

Sure it can. But the abuse of a principle doesn’t negate it’s use. (Abusus non tollit usus). In other words, sola scriptura was never the claim that everyone was going to agree on the interpretation of scripture. But it is the claim that everyone ought to agree that scripture is what finally decides the matter.

I grant that you believe that Tradition and Scripture can be harmonized. If I thought that were true, I’d be a Catholic. But for those of us who believe Tradition, as Rome defines it, has contradicted scripture, then the only recourse left to us is scripture. In other words, if you believed that the church had erred and defined false teachings as binding on the conscience of the believer, then you’re only logical move is take refuge in scripture.

I don’t see Jesus’s promise to his church and the fact that the church of Rome can fall into error as problematic. The church in Sardis and Ephesus and many others (see Revelation 1-3) all fell into error as well. But Jesus–the Faithful and Ture–called them back to repentance. The Church as whole, which is Christ’s body, over which he is the head, is indefectible. That’s really as far as you can push the passages you cited since the don’t actually say, “the Church can’t error.” That’s an inference you draw–but a completely unnecessary one. All it need mean is that the church won’t fail.

The fact of the matter is that he gave the church scripture so that the truth of his word would alway remain stable. Providence has supplied us with more than enough manuscript evidence for us to be extremely confident in the text we have. So we do have a stable norm that is more than enough to know the truths God has revealed and it contains everything we need to know for salvation.

That said, it simply doesn’t follow that because Jesus promised that the church would ultimately triumph that a particular church couldn’t fall into error. My goodness, Paul, your own namesake apostle warned the Roman church precisely this in his letter to them! In fact, he warned them that they could be “cut off.” Isn’t it at least possible that this happened? Jesus warns churches that he’ll spit them out of his mouth and take away their lamp stand. But that doesn’t mean the Church as a whole thereby fails.

I think you may be guilty here of some either/or thinking. Either the Church and its Tradition are infallible or Christ lied. Seek the tertium quid, Paul. There really is a plausible alternative to the false dichotomy you’re preaching here.

That’s a misrepresentation of what I said–that or you’re just not understanding. When I said “principles” are starting points. The root word of principle means “beginning.” In philosophy and theology, a principle is the starting point from which we derive particular doctrines. Scripture is that starting point and scripture itself gives witness to that fact. Nothing else in your Rule of Faith (i.e, Tradition or the Magisterium) has anything like scripture’s authority, as far as scripture is concerned. “You err,” said Jesus, not because you don’t know “the Magisterium” or “Tradition,” but because you don’t know “the Scriptures.” Paul told the Corinthians “not beyond what is written,” by which he specifically warned them not to elevate church leaders (such as Apollos, Paul, Cephas) beyond the authority and boundaries of scripture. The Roman Catholic Church, I’m afraid, has ignored that completely by elevating Peter and his alleged successors way beyond the boundaries Paul sets.

Are you saying scripture is unimportant because he didn’t write a book?

The Magisterium does not claim to be above Scripture or Tradition, but its guardian. The hierachy is bound “by oath” so to speak to guard, protect and defend, just as a judge is bound to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The difference is that the “Constitution” of the Church is much elevated over secular constitutions by its divine origin and the guanantee of infallibility. Earthly empires can fall, the Church never.

 

[Tiberius1701]

The Reformation was basically a revolt against authority. The Reformers invoke the Scriptures but also appeal to the Spirit as the Supreme Authority and themselves as the true ministers of the Spirit. In effect they arrogate to themselves as Bible Scholars the authority they deny to the Hierarchy. We have seen in our own age how biblical scholars are led by their own learning --much of which they owe to liberal Protestants–into a rejection of the magisterium.

And, eventually, into a rejection of whatever truth isn’t personally palatable, as we can see with the thinking of those like Thomas Jefferson and the “Jesus Seminar”, who say that, if it doesn’t seem nice and comfortable, then it’s probably not even infallible, so they reduce the Word of God to a few select verses that make Jesus powerless and essentially about as likely to be crucified by the scribes and Pharisees (or by anyone at all, for that matter) as would be a teddy bear…

 

[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.

Actually, the Bible does teach sola scriptura.

No it doesn’t. Nowhere does the Bible actually teach, either explicitly or implicitly, SS.

Many passages show us that those who used scripture to state doctrines did so on the basis that scripture not only had the highest normative authority but that nothing else like tradition or the religious leaders had an equal authority to scripture.

Name one passage that shows this. Also, when you say that Scripture is the highest normative authority, you ascribe to Scripture a claim that it doesn’t even make about itself.

Also, do you really think your post actually addresses the essence of my quote above? If SS is a teaching from God which is designed to be the test of validity for all Christian doctrine, why is it not explicitly taught in the Bible in the way the 10 Commandments and the Great Shema are? Why does it have to be drawn out of a handful of vague Bible passages (none of which actually hold water in this regard) like some hidden riddle? Why didn’t God simply have ONE prophet actually write it? Why didn’t Jesus actually teach it? That’s all it would take, and everyone would be an adherent of SS.

Sola scriptura is simply the theological presupposition of everyone who said, “it is written.” Even Satan attempts to appeal to that same principle in order to win an argument with Jesus.

Then why haven’t the Jews, in their 4000-year history (using the Covenant of Abraham as the starting point) ever had this theological presupposition? The existence of the Talmud clearly shows that the Jews relied upon both Scripture and oral tradition.

And exactly how does the devil quoting Scripture demonstrate your definition of Sola Scriptura? He said, “It is written” because what he was quoting was, indeed, written, and therefore clear examples of God’s revelation (and could not be considered deceitful claims like he pulled off in the Garden of Eden). But this doesn’t mean all of God’s revelation has to be written.

So yes–Scripture does teach sola scriptura. But no–it doesn’t have to in order for it to be true. Nor is sola scirptura true simply because scripture teaches it.

We’ve been over this before, Miguel. SS cannot be true because it fails its own test. It requires proposed Christian teachings to be found in the Bible as the test for validity. SS is not found in the Bible, and therefore it invalidates itself. A teaching that has such a paradox as this cannot possibly be true.

Sola scriptura is true because God’s word is true.

And yet SS is not actually found in God’s word.

The truth of the principle has its origin in God.

No, this principle has its origins in fallible humans.

I don’t think Catholics disagree with this in principle–i.e., that there is no higher authority than God’s word. They just insist that God’s word is a larger category than scripture–that it includes tradition and the “living” teaching authority of the magisterium.

And I think it is worth pointing out that this is not a belief exclusive to Catholicism. The various Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy likewise believe this. If you take out the specific line concerning the Magisterium, you can even add Jews to this list.

Protestants counter that because Tradition–as defined by Rome–includes doctrines that contradict scripture–and because Tradition has been thus errantly defined by the magisterium–that scripture is the only access we have to God’s word today.

No Catholic Tradition or doctrine contradicts Scripture. They only contradict the personal interpretations of certain people, and all of these people admit that their interpretations of Scripture are fallible.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…

Sola scriptura–as historically understood by Protestants–is not the denial that God’s word has existed orally at one time. But the oral proclamation of his word that God wished to preserve for posterity always culminates in scripture.

Where does Scripture actually say this? With what credentials, biblical or historical, can you provide that demonstrate that God’s revelation “always” culminates in Scripture?

Sola scriptura, then, is sort of the default position that emerges when the other two legs of the stool have collapsed.

No, SS is the default positions for Protestant Reformers who were looking for an excuse to do things their own way.

If the Church has erred, and if erroneous traditions have been defined as dogma, then scripture is all that remains. 3-2 = 1. Its really that simple.

The Church has never defined an erroneous tradition as dogma.

I believe a number of the church fathers (especially Cyril of Jerusalem) and scholastics held to the view that scripture had the highest normative authority. Many of these, however, would have also believed that the Church and Tradition were all part of the rule of faith simply because they had presumed that the Church’s teaching was an accurate expression of the truths of scripture–not because they thought of the bishops or the pope or something called “Tradition,” as being on par with scripture. But that’s a topic for another thread.

Even if the ECFs clearly wrote about SS, that would not be enough to clearly validate it. As I have stated numerous times, SS has to play by its own rules in order to be valid. It is not actually found in the Bible, so if a person says that SS is legitimate because the ECFs wrote about it, then that means SS is derived from Patristic writings and not the Bible. But it is supposed to be “Sola Scriptura,” not “Sola Scriptura & Patristics.”

If we attempt to prove sola scriptura by assuming sola scirptura, we beg the question. Principles can’t prove themselves. Since sola sciptura is a principle–that is a starting point–then it is the beginning point from which doctrines are derived.

Once again, Miguel, you and I have been through this before. The question at hand is not whether or not a principle can prove itself. The question at hand is why a teaching based on “Scripture Alone” is not actually found in “Scripture Alone”.

Assume, for a moment, that your counter-example were true. If God had designated a biblical prophet to say, “sola scriptura is true”…or words to that effect, what would that prove?

It would certainly prove Sola Scriptura!

One would only know to take the prophet’s word for it because one already knew that one is supposed to listen to the words of the prophets that are recorded in scripture.

Actually, the oral preaching of a prophet was the “Word of God” at that very moment. A prophet’s teaching did not have to wait to be later put into writing to be considered authentic examples of God’s revelation.

Such a hypothetical verse would provide us with no new information since we would have already had the notion in place that scripture–as Gods word–is our highest authority.

But no one had that notion until the Protestant Reformation. So such a hypothetical verse most certainly would have provided people with new information. For example, in the Old Testament period the Talmud was considered the “Oral Torah” because it was not yet put in writing. Did God approve of this? Well, if God actually wants people to be adherents of SS he would not. So why not have a prophet clearly teach people the concept of SS?

 

[Tiberius1701]

Eric, I love your posts, and you’re a brilliant apologist. However, I have to agree with Miguel on just one thing about which you are in error. You said:

No, this principle has its origins in fallible humans.

However, as Miguel clearly and correctly pointed out, it has its origin in Satan, not man:

Even Satan attempts to appeal to that same principle in order to win an argument with Jesus.