Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[EricFilmer]

Eric, I love your posts, and you’re a brilliant apologist.

Thanks Tiberius, and let me say I likewise enjoy your posts, and the explanation regarding your user name is great. Also, congratulations to you and your wife regarding the new arrival to the family.

However, I have to agree with Miguel on just one thing about which you are in error. You said…

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

“D’oh!” How could I have missed that???

Thanks for giving me a big laugh as I log off CAF for the night.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Thanks Tiberius, and let me say I likewise enjoy your posts, and the explanation regarding your user name is great. Also, congratulations to you and your wife regarding the new arrival to the family.

“D’oh!” How could I have missed that???

Thanks for giving me a big laugh as I log off CAF for the night.

Thank you for the congrats. And also, you’re very welcome.

In all seriousness, though, I think Miguel does have a point about Satan’s involvement in SS. After all, wasn’t Satan’s first question to Eve, “Has God indeed said…?” It’s entirely possible to understand this as Satan saying to her, “Isn’t it a shame that God hasn’t given you clear, authoritative, written instructions yet, so you can rely completely on them rather than on listening to whatever God says to you when you walk with Him in the garden?” Seems to me that it’s not that big a stretch to see SS even here. After all, if Miguel tells us that Satan teaches SS, who are we to disagree with him?

 

[guanophore]

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

Of course Scripture is important to doctrine (doctrine created it, and it reflects the doctrine of Jesus Christ, preserved infallibly in the Church.). But the importance, inerrancy, and inspired nature of the scriptures do not equate to SS.

  not only had the highest normative authority but that nothing else like tradition or the religious leaders had an equal authority to scripture.

No, Miguel, this cannot be shown in Scripture. In fact, Scripture shows the opposite. Scripture reflects that all those who used Scripture to defend the doctrines of the faith were authorized to do so by Christ, through the Apostles. They had “the mind of Christ” to understand and teach the Scripture. The heretics used those same scriptures (just as they do today) to form and defend their errant beliefs. Whe the Scriptures are separated from the Apostolic Faith that created them, errors of interpretation and understanding result.

Sola scriptura is simply the theological presupposition of everyone who said, "it is written."

Perhaps so, but this presuppositon is also made by Catholics, who reject SS. The fact that the inspired and inerrant Scriptures lay certain groundwork for doctrinal formulation does not equate to SS either.

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

I think you just refuted your own arguement.

If the devil can use it, it obviously can be misused.

 So yes--Scripture does teach sola scriptura.  But no--it doesn't have to in order for it to be true.

All your examples of Scripture teaching SS fall short. But this one takes the cake.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
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.

Miguel, since it is so clear that scripture can and is constantly distorted, another authority is required to determine what is the proper interpretation of scripture. That authority is the final arbiter and it is the magesterium of the Church…

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

Yes, we are in agreement that once you deny the authority of the Church, the only link to God left to you is scripture. But you know, its funny. You believe what the Church wrote down, but not what it says directly. The reason this is true is because you distort the written word to make it say what you want, just as Satan did in Matthew 4 and Just as Peter warns in 2Peter 3. However, if you misinterpret what the magesterium says to you, they will correct you… That is the difference between a book and a person.

Quote:
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.

Actually, the Church in Sardis failed to do good works
1 To the angel of the church in Sardis, write this: " 'The one who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars says this: "I know your works, that you have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead.
2 Be watchful and strengthen what is left, which is going to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God.
And the Ephesians failed to love:
1 "To the angel of the church 3 in Ephesus, write this: " 'The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this:
2 "I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors.
3 Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary.
4 Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first.
If the Church can not be trusted to teach the true Gospel, then you would have no where to turn. Remember, a Protestant pastor’s interpretation of the bible led him to declare that the rapture was going to happen last week. He had the same authority that you have to interpret the bible: none.

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.

Yes, all those people that sold their posessions last week because they believed that scripture told them to, will certainly tell you that scripture in not a stable norm. Its only as good as its interpreter.

 

[paul_c]

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.

First of all, we are not talking about an individual church, we are talking about the Universal Catholic Church. Secondly, Paul wasn’t warning the Church in Rome that they would be cut off, he warned the individual Romans that they must do good works and stay in Jesus or they would be condemned. And you are absolutely right that if individual churches fail, the entire Church does not. Your error is thinking that the Catholic Church, headquartered in Rome is an individual church. It is not. It is THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that was commissioned to spread the gospel and administer the sacraments by Jesus himself. And don’t give me the Invisible church argument. An invisible church can’t do the work of God. Jesus set up a visible church for a reason.

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.

Can you show me where I’m incorrect>

Quote:
How was sola scripture a starting point.

I’m afraid that this is just another example of a sola Scriptura enthusiast bending scripture to what he wants it to say.

In the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), Jesus goes beyond the scripture of the time:
21 "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’
22 But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
So obviously, Jesus didn’t consider scriptural authority higher than his own. he didn’t contradict scripture, but he certainly added to it.

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

I’m saying that if scripture was the only thing that someone could trust, then Jesus would have left a written record of what he wanted. As it is, Jesus didn’t write a word. Instead, he left his Church in the hands of trustworthy men, who he trained for the job. That makes it clear that we need to learn from the Church, not from a book which can be easily misinterpreted.

 

[guanophore]

 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.

No, Miguel. You can produce no evidence that this principle has it’s origins in God. If it did, it would not have created splinters and fragmentations in His One Body, the church. We know them by their fruits.

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.

Yes. Catholics believe the Word of God is Jesus Himself, unconfined to the writings.

Protestants counter that because Tradition--as defined by Rome--includes doctrines that contradict scripture--

I can understand why it would seem this way. Those who have been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500+ years don’t even realize how much of it they have lost.

 

[guanophore]

and because Tradition has been thus errantly defined by the magisterium–that scripture is the only access we have to God’s word today.

This formulation still does not account for the tradition that we are commanded by Apostles to obey and maintain mentioned in Scripture. If the CC has “errantly defined” it, then what is the correct definition? SS’s say “it is all in the Scripture”, yet, Scripture says the opposite of itself.

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.

And yet, Scripture does not support this concept whatsoever. It also requires a belief that Jesus did not, could not, or would not keep His promises to the Church.

Isa 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Such a belief would require that the purpose for which Jesus deposited His Word in the Church had come to an end at some point.

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.

Yes, I think you hit this nail right on the head Miguel. This doctrine was developed because those who made it up had already concluded the same about the other two legs. Jesus failed in his promise to guide the Church into all truth, so men had to find a default position that would make up for His lack of faithfulness.

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.

I doubt you can substantiate this, but I will certainly concede that the fathers nad doctors of the Church have** all** considered the Scriptures to be of high normative authority. None of them used them apart from the Sacred Tradition that created them, but certainly venerated the Scriptures a Source of God’s Word - as Jerome said, ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

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.

The two are not separated, Miguel.

Not only that, they did not have to “presume” because they had both available to them, and it was perfectly clear to them that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture complement one another, and never contradict.

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.

This is a very good point, also one which makes the principle self refuting.

Doctrines are not to be gleaned from the pages of a book, however Holy, but are handed down from Jesus through the Apostles. They are preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS because this is how God intended it to work.

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?

In fact, this is exactly what we see! We see Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc speaking as if they believe they are prophets of God. You are right, it proves only that anyone can appoint themselves a prophet and declare what one believes is the Word of God.

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.

None of the verses of Scripture provide Catholics with any “new information”, since the faith was whole and entire before a word of it was ever written down. Further, that fullness of Truth did not somehow vanish from the Church where He instilled it after some of it was written down.

It basically boils down to how God intended His authority to function on earth until the end of the Church Age. Catholics believe He founded a Church, and appointed authority in and over it. Sola Scripturists believe, as you have cited here, that the authority appointed by Christ is defunct. He was unable to uphold them, so they fell.

 

[guanophore]

Sure it can. But the abuse of a principle doesn’t negate it’s use. (Abusus non tollit usus).

I agree, and the same applies to Catholic bishops who abused their God given authority to fleece the flock. THeir abuse of the principle of authority in the Church does NOT, as you have asserted, negate that authority.

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.

Actually, I think the framers of the notion thought that everyone would have more agreement than they ultimately have.

But the notion that Scripture “decides” is faulty at it’s base. Writings cannot “decide” anything, no matter how Holy they are. Decisions must be made by persons, not books. Decision making requires intellect, acts of the will, accountability and discernment. THe Holy Scriptures do not have these qualities. That is the main reason the SS practice is flawed. All those who apply it believe that the Scripture is making “decisions”, but it is really the persons doing the reading that are deciding.

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 agree. I think the framers of SS were looking for exactly this - a refuge of Truth amidst what to them seemed like doctrinal errors. They mistook the rapacious behavior of errant clerics for the Teaching of the Church. They sought purity and Truth in the pages of the Holy Writ.

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.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

If it was not possible for people to fall into error, then the Church would have no need for the gift of infallibility.

You will notice, however, that Jesus always is addressing individuals in the Churches. His Holy Bride cannot fall into error because He is her Head, and the HS is her Soul. Individuals can depart from the Teachings, but the Church cannot be separated from them.

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.

But that is the point, Miguel. Error causes failure. Either Jesus kept His promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”, or he did not. How can anything that is divine err? The Church is incarnational, just like Jesus. A human nature, and a divine nature. It is the divine that prevents error, not the human.

 

[guanophore]

The fact of the matter is that he gave the church scripture so that the truth of his word would alway remain stable.

What you are saying is that He is incapable of perserving his word infallibly in people, as well as paper. You are saying that the fallibility of mankind is stronger than God’s ability to keep His word pure in them.

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.

So the once for all deposit of the faith to the Church became “unstable”?

God has to fail on so many counts in order for SS to stand.

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.

This gets back to how one defines Church. Individuals can fall into error, but Jesus bride cannot.

…Paul… apostle warned the Roman church precisely this in ois 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.

Individuals can be cut off.

Individuals can be spit out.

The Church cannot.

I think you may be guilty here of some either/or thinking. Either the Church and its Tradition are infallible or Christ lied.

There are other options also. He could have gotten the flu for about 1500 years, and did not recover his strength until the Reformation.

He could have believed he was able to deliver what he promised, and did not know he could not. In that case, he did not lie, but was in denial!

Or, he could have been a lunatic, and just full of crazy talk.

Or, maybe he never made any such promise at all, and it was just invented by his followers?

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.

You really believe that Scripture says of itself that it is the starting point of all that should be doctrine?

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.

Of course you must interpret the scriptures this way, so that you can cling to your theologies. If you accepted the faith of the Apostles, then you would have to acknowledge the authority of the Church.

“You err,” said Jesus, not because you don’t know “the Magisterium” or “Tradition,” but because you don’t know “the Scriptures.”

Except that they did “know” their scriptures. They did not interpret them correctly, but they knew them quite well. One can be well familiar with the Scriptures, yet not understand them according to the faith of those who wrote them. All the major heretical movements used the same scriptures to support their ideas.

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.

No, Miguel, that is not what he meant. He wrote them an example, then told them to follow the boundaries of the example he wrote.

He was not referring to the NT, which had not yet been written. This was one of the earliest NT documents to be penned. IF you apply it literally, then you cannot include most of the NT under that restriction! You have taken his command out of context, misunderstood, and misapplied it.

The Roman Catholic Church, I’m afraid, has ignored that completely by elevating Peter and his alleged successors way beyond the boundaries Paul sets.

IT was God who elevated Peter, and He did that at least 20 years before this letter was written. THe gifts and the call of Peter were bestowed prior to the conversion of Paul, so you are right, they are not within the boundaries Paul is giving to the Corinthians.

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

No.

We are saying that the writing of the NT does not make the Church He established unimportant, or lacking in the authority He gave her.

 

[Tiberius1701]

I’ve been thinking more about what Miguel has revealed to us about the true patron (if not author) of sola Scriptura (i.e. Satan), and I feel I must take a deeper look at Scripture to see more clearly just how integral his role actually is. Is Satan just a proponent of SS? Or is he in fact its author?

As I said last night, I think the place to start looking is in Genesis, beginning with Gen 2:15-17.
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
Now, having come from the Reformed tradition myself, I think Miguel will agree with me when I say that Adam here is being made Steward over All Creation. Being a Catholic now, I think it’s important to pay attention to this common Calvinistic term for Adam and for mankind. Steward over All Creation. It means that he has been given Authority over Creation, an Authority which he must use to protect and nurture it. But look at the first thing God does after placing Adam in the position of Steward: He gives him the first divine command, I believe we would all see this as the first Word of God given to man. But, He didn’t give it to mankind in general, He gave it to the Steward… just as He would later entrust the Steward of the Kingdom of Heaven, St. Peter, with the Word of God. He takes pains to show us that He did not give this Word to Eve, for she had not even been created yet, but instead he gave it to the man, the Steward. So, when Eve was created, how did she hear this command, how did she receive the Word of God? Through the Tradition taught to her by Adam, the Steward. (Shockingly Catholic, isn’t it?)

So, what happens next? Well, Satan does precisely the same thing he did with Martin Luther: he takes the person subordinate to the Steward and whispers in her ear when she is alone, apart from the Steward. Look at Gen 3:1-3.
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
As I said last night, he first asks her to look at what God said, to review the Word, but note, he does not want her to ask Adam, the Steward, what God’s command was or what he, the Steward, understood God’s purpose behind it to be. No. Satan wants her to look at the words themselves, apart from Adam. He wanted her to interpret for herself, apart from the Steward to whom the Word had been entrusted, what she thought it meant. (Sound familiar?) And what happened once Satan had gotten her to think about the Word on its own, apart from the Authority of the Steward? Once he’d taught her that she had the authority of interpretation over it? Read Gen 3:4.
4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
He got her to question it’s veracity, just as “Bible scholars” who do not submit to the Authority of the Steward of the Kingdom question it today. Once they have already put themselves in the place of the Steward, and indeed in the place of God, as interpreters of the Word, Satan whispers in their ears once again, saying, “You don’t really believe that God means what He says in the Word, do you? Surely He means what you say He means!” (“You will be like God, knowing good and evil.”) And from there it’s a very, very short walk to the infidelity of the “Jesus Seminar”…

Satan starts by getting us to step apart from the Authority of God’s chosen Steward. Next, he asks us to look for ourselves at the Word that was entrusted to that Steward. Then he says, “Don’t trust the Steward’s interpretation; don’t even bother asking him what that interpretation is. He’s just a fallible man, anyway. Just interpret it for yourself. God gave you a brain, use it!” And then, once he’s gotten us to embrace the principle behind sola Scriptura, he teaches us to carefully tweak the Word of God (you know, while we’re translating it for ourselves because we can’t trust the Steward’s faithful, appointed translators), so that Scripture says what it “should” mean rather than what the Steward has always told us it means. And then, he gets us to question Scripture’s veracity, and finally to slowly begin tossing out all the “questionable” verses where God seems to be “too offensive” or “unpalatable” or “historically unlikely”. After all, that’s not the loving, forgiving, unthreatening God that we know Jesus really was (not that we’re even sure Jesus was God; I mean, that’s just too much to ask us to believe anyway, right?)…

((To Be Continued…))

 

[Tiberius1701]

((Continued…))

See how very fond Satan is of SS? Even before the Word was written down - even before there was such a thing as “written down” - he placed the principle behind SS into the heart of mankind: “You can’t trust the person whom God trusted with His Word. Interpret it for yourself!” And where did that get Eve? Exactly here: “Death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command” (Rom 5:14). Yeah, SS is a fantastic prinicle; it’s done great wonders for mankind…

Don’t get me wrong, though. I truly am thankful for sola Scriptura. Sure, without it, we might never have needed saving in the first place, but then we also never would’ve seen just how much God loves us because He wouldn’t have needed to send Jesus to unite our humanity to the Godhead and then to die in our place for believing in SS. As the song says, “Oh happy fault…” I’m just saying that it seems pretty clear, from a careful examination of Genesis, that Satan truly is the author, not just the patron, of that most “happy fault” of sola Scriptura…

(P.S. Sorry to my fellow Catholics who’ve been asking the Protestants to prove that SS was believed before the reformation… I think I just proved that for them. :bigyikes

 

[inkaneer]

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.

Quote:
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

Well first of all David T. King [whoever he is] is not infallible and can be wrong. In fact he is wrong. Mr. King makes these critical errors. First he refers to a “…the future development of a living voice…” That living voice was not in the future but rather was standing in front of the Thessalonians, Corinthians, etc. in the form of an Apostle, to wit Paul. Paul was imparting to them what we now call Apostolic Tradition. That Apostolic Tradition was Oral. Paul later followed up with writings that were remedial in nature to address specific issues. It is in this context that Paul urges the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold onto his teaching that they receive both orally as well as by his later letters.

Second, Mr King ignores scripture’s immutability. It is God’s written word as God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then His word is likewise the same. Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians to hold onto the oral teaching he gave as well as what he wrote is timeless and is just as valid today as when Paul penned the words. Mr. King obviously would like to forget that.

Third, Mr. King says, “, the Church was already in possession of these traditions. They were already ‘keeping’ them, ‘holding’ them, and ‘walking’ in them.” If that was the case why did Paul have to write to these people and address certain issues such as telling them to “abstain from unchastity” as he did the Thessalonians and appealling to the Corinthians that they remain united and to end their dissension. Obviously the Church was not ‘keeping’ them, ‘holding’ them, and ‘walking’ in the traditions as Mr. King would foolishly like us to believe.

Finally Mr. King ignores other scripture where the establishment of a Church with authority is made clear. Matthew 16:18–19 is a clear perfection of the OT foreshadowing of the chief steward as portrayed in Isaiah 22:22. The OT Davidic kings picked twelve strewards to help them administer the kingdom. One of these was selected to be the chief steward and was given the authority to act in the name of the king. He was given the keys to the kingdom. In the NT Jesus, a Davidic king, appoints twelve stewards [apostles] to help him administer the Church. One of these, Peter, is given the authority to act in the name of Jesus and was given the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven. Scripture is so clear on this that one has to be grossly obtuse to deny it. Then again in John 21:15-17 Peter is made the shepherd of God’s sheep. He is to lead them and feed them. The other apostles have a share in this feeding of the sheep but it is Peter alone who the Good Shepherd calls the shepherd of his flock with authority over it [John 21:16]

Mr. King leaves out a lot in his writing and what he leaves out is lethal to what he does write. You can follow Mr. King but as for me I’ll follow the one who has the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven for it is he who speaks in the name of God, not Mr. King.

 

[Tomster]

Your version of Sola Scriptura doesn’t, there are plenty of Protestants that believe that it means Scripture Alone, in fact the vast majority are in that category. If Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone) then why not drop the Sola and the whole issue is solved. Or, why not change the term to be more in line with what it means, like Scriptura et Traditio benefacientes. The trouble with Sola Scriptura is that it can mean any thing depending on who you are talking to.

Before trying to promote Sola Scriptura perhaps you could all get together and come up with an definition that is Authoritatively held by all Protestants first.

Again, we agree!

 

[Tomster]

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.

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

Who’s tradition are you speaking of? Luther’s? Calvin’s? Cranmer’s? Joseph Smith’s? Jimmy Swaggert’s?

Authority man, authority!

 

[Tomster]

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.

Thank you very much!

 

[benedictus2]

[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]

Questions:

1. 
   *]Where did Scripture come from?
   
   *]If it is the only source that carried the weight of infallible authority, can you tell me (Book, Chapter and Verse) where is it taught in the Bible?

 

[Tomster]

benedictus2:
Questions:

1. 
   *]Where did Scripture come from?
   
   *]If it is the only source that carried the weight of infallible authority, can you tell me (Book, Chapter and Verse) where is it taught in the Bible?
   
   Good luck trying to get an answer on this one. It’s been asked over and over and over again ad nauseam.
   
   Not one response has been given. Not one!

 

[benedictus2]

Good luck trying to get an answer on this one. It’s been asked over and over and over again ad nauseam.

Not one response has been given. Not one!

I am coming rather late on the thread and I knew that that would have been asked already and I also knew that no one would come up with the answer . Same thing has happened on quite a few similar threads.


Now the question is what does the OP or anyone who still cling to SS do?

 

[JonNC]

Who’s tradition are you speaking of? Luther’s? Calvin’s? Cranmer’s? Joseph Smith’s? Jimmy Swaggert’s?

Authority man, authority!

I think I mentioned what tradition I mean: the early councils and creeds, the ECF’s. Read what Melanchthon wrote. He didn’t mention Luther. He mentioned the the western Church, the eastern Church, Vulgarius, Cyril. Seems to me we’d agree that those folks were pretty authoritative.

As for the others, none of them were or are Lutheran. So, therefore, since I was speaking of Lutheranism, mentioning them is irrelevent.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

I think I mentioned what tradition I mean: the early councils and creeds, the ECF’s. Read what Melanchthon wrote. He didn’t mention Luther. He mentioned the the western Church, the eastern Church, Vulgarius, Cyril. Seems to me we’d agree that those folks were pretty authoritative.

As for the others, none of them were or are Lutheran. So, therefore, since I was speaking of Lutheranism, mentioning them is irrelevent.

Jon

Far from irrelevent. It seems to me you will not face up to the fact that once the Reformation started the original Reformers could not real in subsequent Reformers who disagreed with them. True authority was lost and the slippery slope began.