Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Jason_L_Barnes]

I think I’d use the same reasoning to draw the opposite conclusion. What happens when unbiblical traditions are elevated to the level of doctrine? What happens when the church begins to call its own traditions the word of God? What happens when the church sees itself as the norm by which the meaning of scripture is determined and not the other way around?

I see that part of the problem stems from Protestants assuming that they have equal footing when it comes to the Church doctrine. Simply put, you don’t. The Catholic Church IS the Church established by Jesus Christ. Protestantism is the rebellion that happend one and a half millenia later. To draw an opposite conclusion from the truth is to draw a lie.

As stated, Christ established the Church and it’s authority along with it. When we state Church doctrine, it is not a position or a proposal, it bound on earth as it is in heaven, it is the truth. Denial of this is to argue with Jesus Christ, a practice that I personally do not recommend.

I’m not sure I understand the question. How does holding that God’s word is the norm to which our teaching and practice ought to conform obviate the need for the things you mentioned above? I don’t get it.

Don’t get it or don’t like it? The true Church recognizes the need for instruction, it is the Protestant position that doesn’t. I’m assuming that sola scriptura is properly defined under the Westminster Confession of Faith which stated:

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

I’m not sure how you define sola scriptura, as there are so many definitions to choose from out there. I suppose if it were in the Bible we would all be on the same page.

If Protestants say they do need teachers then how does one ensure consistency? Each individual is guided by the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit intend to guide protestantism into over 30,000 different sects? To word it another way, either sola scriptura neccessitates the need for teaching authority or it doesn’t. If the word of scripture alone is sufficient for each individual to interpret, as alluded to in the Westminster statement, then how do you justify the teaching arms of your organizations? Why should I listen to your interpretation when I can have my own? It appears to be a self-defeating principle for Protestants.

This, I think, is a fair criticism in many cases. But the abuse of a principle doesn’t deny the correct use of a principle. One might just as well argue that marriage is wrong simply because most people who attempt it in this country end up failing. After all, what could be more divisive than marriage? And yet somehow I think you’d agree that it isn’t marriage per se that is the problem–but the people who attempt it. Protestantism is full of people–so it doesn’t surprise me that the principle has been abused.

I have to say, I admire how you give creedance to this part of the post as if to convey a willingness to be open-minded. I almost fell for it myself, a common apologetic tactic and one that works well. However, after having read through all of the post on this thread I fear that you simply don’t want to acknowledge the truth of this subject. I understand. To admit this, even if it’s to yourself, is to admit that protestantism adheres to false doctrine and has no authority. Like a row of domino’s, everything else falls apart from there. I suspect you have honest intentions but please understand that from the Catholic point of view you are committing heresy. I don’t say this to be mean or antagonize, I truly fear for your immortal soul. Please give up this senseless arguement and come home. We are all waiting with open arms.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
=inkaneer;7936415]Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
No, its not. That is not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura implies there are other sources of information available but only scripture is accepted. But when there is no other source available then the only source of information that we have to rely on is scripture. In other words, with other sources of evidence available the sola scriptura doctrine forces one to go only with scripture. When no other sources are available then it is scripture that provides the only evidence. However, that is not to say that scripture is not used when other sources of evidence are available. There is no contradiction between the Oral Tradition and the Written Tradition. If you think there is then the problem lies with you [your interpretation] and not with either Tradition.

Here is what the Formula of Concord says:

. . .3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
JonNC;7943796:

Here is what the Formula of Concord says:

The third paragraph sounds to me like an acceptance of extra-biblical writings, namely, the three creeds. And this does not fit into your presentation of sola scriptura.
Jon

Reading #3 it occurs to me that the creeds are accepted because they were accepted by the early church as if there was some form of democratic vote or poll pof some sort. Of course there was no such thing. Unlike today the early church was united in orthodix doctrines and when schismatics and heretics arose the early church was quick to respond in the form of writings by people we now refer to as the Fathers of the Church. So just who were these people? For the most part they were bishops of the Catholic Church.

But why does the *Formula of Concord *stop at only the three creeds? The early church was in unanimous agreement in other areas also. Such things as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In fact, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, acknowledged this when he wrote:

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Kelly goes on to write:

*“Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally”* (ibid., 211–12).

Kelly acknowledges that the belief in the Real Presence was, in the words of the “Formula of Concord. *”… regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church,"*So why the arbitrary decision to limit this tradition to only the three creeds and under whose authority was this decision made? It certainly was not scripture!

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Please explain this arbitrariness of the part of those people who came up with the Formula of Concord. But I don’t think you can give a reasonable and logical explanation. Either you admit there is another authority by which this decision was made [which you cannot do] or point #3 of the Formula of Concord is doctrinal error. Which is it???

 

[JonNC]

But why does the *Formula of Concord *stop at only the three creeds? The early church was in unanimous agreement in other areas also. Such things as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In fact, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, acknowledged this when he wrote:

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Kelly goes on to write:

*“Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally”* (ibid., 211–12).

Kelly acknowledges that the belief in the Real Presence was, in the words of the “Formula of Concord. *”… regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church,"*Formula of Concord

. But I don’t think you can give a reasonable and logical explanation. Either you admit there is another authority by which this decision was made [which you cannot do] or point #3 of the Formula of Concord is doctrinal error. Which is it???

If you do not believe I can give a reasonable or logical response, why ask the question?

Regardless, paragraphs one and two answer your question. They are true witnesses to the truth of scripture. It isn’t arbitrary, and it isn’t just these 2, as there are many things Lutherans receive from the early Church in this way. The neccessity of Baptism, and that of infant Baptism, the Blessed Virgin as Holy Theotokos, and many more, including the one you mention, that of the true and substantial body and blood of Christ that is the Eucharist. We accept the the fist six councils, and essentialy the 7th. They are teachings that rightly reflect scripture.

So, their authoritativeness is based on the truth they reflect, that of the truth of the Word of God. Now, you may not agree with the position, and that’s fine. I’m not trying to convince you. Your faith is strong, and I respect and honor that, and I do not question your ability to give a logical and reasonable explanation for the things you believe.

So why the arbitrary decision to limit this tradition to only the three creeds and under whose authority was this decision made? It certainly was not scripture!

This question, and the statement that follows, proves my point. Sola scriptura is not a rejection or an exclusion of Tradition.

Jon

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

St. Paul commanded the keeping of traditions, in fact, he says have no part with those who don’t follow the traditions.

Could you be more specific?

 

[guanophore]

Is not hermeunetics a practice of the Church? SS is the basis upon which our Church practices hermeunetics.

Yes, hermeneutics is a practice of the Church, or possibly a methodological approach.

All hermeneutics, though are based upon foundational principles. For Catholics, it is the Sacred Tradition - the Teaching of the Aposltes.

All of our faith practices are based upon doctrine.

What doctrine forms the basis for the practice of hermenueutics through the lens of SS, rather than Sacred Tradition?

I submit that it is the need to reject the authorities of the Church. Luther could not trust anything that was coming from them at the time. All he saw was corruption of the Word of God.

 

[guanophore]

As one often sees here, SS is not explicitly defined in scripture, which is the source of doctrine.

This is one of my beefs with SS. How can one,with any intellectual honesty, claim that scritpure is the ultimate authority, when it does not say this of itself.

It seems to me that a doctrine is something one must hold to. I see no reason to believe that sola scriptura is a doctrine in this sense.

One must hold to, or what? If it is essential to a right understanding and practice of the One Faith, then how can it not be a doctrine?

If there is a doctrine of the faith, and one does not hold to it, is one a heretic?

Is not the reason Luther found fault with the CC because he could not find their practices in the Scipture, and therefore, rejected them? Seems doctrinal to me.

At the very least, it is a standard by which practices are measured, and that should not be done unless the standard is doctrinal.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, hermeneutics is a practice of the Church, or possibly a methodological approach.

All hermeneutics, though are based upon foundational principles. For Catholics, it is the Sacred Tradition - the Teaching of the Aposltes.

All of our faith practices are based upon doctrine.

What doctrine forms the basis for the practice of hermenueutics through the lens of SS, rather than Sacred Tradition?

I submit that it is the need to reject the authorities of the Church. Luther could not trust anything that was coming from them at the time. All he saw was corruption of the Word of God.

It may be, to a degree, as there was failure to maintain Church unity using Sacred Tradition, and as Luther observed, there was contradiction between councils and popes.
So, where does one turn? Psalms says that the word is a lamp unto my feet. The reformers turned to scripture to sort out the mess they saw of the western Church. We can agree or disagree regarding how severe that mess was, or the roots of it, but nevertheless, that’s what they saw.
Later, some might say, there was also a desire to “change” Church doctrine, and perhaps that can be argued.

But I do have one question, guano. You said, “For Catholics, it is the Sacred Tradition - the Teaching of the Apostles.” Can you elaborate on this teaching of the Apostles, and why is the understanding of it different in the east?

Jon

 

[guanophore]

You’ve hit on something that I think answers the question regarding why Lutherans turned to sola scriptura, and that is that, prior to the Reformation, Sacred Tradition seems to have failed to hold Christian unity - The Great Schism.
Both east and west hold a claim to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. How can both be right? How can the west, for example, hold that there are twenty-something ecumenical councils, and the east lay claim to 7 (or is it 8).

I dont think ST is what failed. If both sides had adhered to the unity of the faith, then there would have been no schism. It is the failing of men that cause such schisms - misunderstanding, pride, ignorance, etc. The faith is One, and when we are all “in Christ”
unity exists naturally. When persons step outside of His Love and His commandments, diviisions happen.

The single best way to dissolve sola scriptura is reconciliation of the patriarchates of the early Church.

Jon

This is an interesting thought. I have always thought of it the other way around - that unity would be restored when SS dissolved.

It seems that SS has caused so much fragmentation in the church. It seems like a return to ST would resolve it. But since the two strands of Revelation are both part of the same once for all deposit of faith, it would be equally necessary to return to them both so that unity can be restored.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;7946694]This is one of my beefs with SS. How can one,with any intellectual honesty, claim that scritpure is the ultimate authority, when it does not say this of itself.

The norming norm. Again, where then is that norming norm? The Church? Ok, which one? Catholics say Rome. Why? Because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error. Again, how can I know which patriarch, which see, is protected?

Without unity, Sacred Tradition has the same flaws that SS is supposed to have. Differing interpretations, especially where the authority rubber hits the road - the power and primacy of the pope.

Jon

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Roman_Catholic asked:

Are you saying this command [not to go beyond what is written] is specifically in other places in Scripture or that you think it’s implied through the examples that you offered?

If by “this command,” you’re referring to 1 Corinthians 4:6, then that’s the only place I know of that uses the words “not beyond what is written.” But I think the underlying principle–i.e., the normative authority of scripture by which our traditions and practices are measured–is detectable in many passages in scripture.

What about in 2 and 3 John where the author writes: “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” 2 John 12

If I understand the objection–and correct me if I do not–it seems that you’re saying sola scriptura isn’t true because scripture itself points to oral teaching. If so, my reply would be as follows. First, sola scriptura, as historically understood by Protestants, isn’t the denial that apostolic teaching had an existence in oral tradition prior to becoming scripture. Nor is it the claim that all of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were written down. Sola scriptura is the claim that what we have in scripture is “sufficient,” not “exhaustive.” That’s a crucial distinction to keep in mind. Finally–if Catholics want to argue that such oral traditions are still available to us today, that’s fine. Just tell us what they are. What exactly did John tell his community that he did not write down? Was it doctrinal in content? Was it different is substance from what we read in his writings? Did John tell his community about Mary’s Immaculate Conception? Did he tell them all about obtaining an indulgence to cancel out the temporal punishment due to their sins? In other words–it’s not enough to simply claim there is this other category out there (i.e., oral tradition) and not be able to demonstrate that you know what the content of that category is. My sense is that Catholics who make this argument are simply presuming to be able to fill up that category with any distinctively Catholic belief or practice that lacks a sufficient basis in scripture. I’m sorry, but that seems highly dubious to me.

I find the subtle difference in 2 John very interesting. That those who the author is writing to won’t be “complete” by what he is writing but only when he comes to talk with them face to face. What you described as the norm doesn’t seem to me to be applied here. It appears to me that what this author says face to face has the same binding authority than if he were to write it.

Actually, I’d agree with you, especially if what he was saying face to face was doctrinal in nature. But for all we know, he could have been dealing with budgetary issues or other mundane items. The point, however, is that we don’t know what those fact-to-face conversations entailed. Providence did not see fit to preserve that information for us. But what we do have is sufficient to know what we need to believe for salvation. That’s the claim of sola scriptura.

In fact he says he would rather come speak with them than write it. Kind of goes with what Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. It seems to me that the written and oral forms of teaching were not only both valid but authoritative. What am I missing?

Please see my comments on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in post #461 which deal with the Catholic misuse/misunderstanding of this verse. But to answer your question, I’ll just state the obvious. What you’re missing is the fact that, apart from the writings of the apostles, we have no other access to their teachings. As Thomas Aquinas says (see my signature below), “We believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and the prophets have left in their writings” (De Veritate, Q.14, art.10, ad.11).

I agree with this *. One does need to know the scriptures. I don’t think the Catholic position is opposed to this, niether is the Protestant position. *

I’m glad you agree with this. I wonder if you would agree, however, with the point I was making–namely–that Jesus’ words here also suggest his own view on scriptural authority vis-a-vis that of the Pharisees who also regarded their own traditions as being on par with scripture. Jesus obviously doesn’t hold that view.

Again this * wouldn’t appear to be opposed to the Catholic position. Or the Protestant position. *

Agreed. But notice that Jesus didn’t appeal to any other authority, except scripture-rightly interpreted. In other words, if Jesus had said, “Sorry Satan, but the constant teaching of the rabbis has always held that women are supposed to make the bread,” to counter the temptation to turn rocks into bread, one could make the case that Jesus regarded tradition as being on par with scripture. But when over and over again, he says, “it is written,” that tells us something about Jesus’ own view of scriptural authority in relation to other authorities (such as tradition or magisterium). Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[guanophore]

St. Paul commanded the keeping of traditions, in fact, he says have no part with those who don’t follow the traditions.

The Catholic Church keeps all of them.

Could you be more specific?

Could you be specific about which ones you thought were not included in this commandment?

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;7946765]I dont think ST is what failed. If both sides had adhered to the unity of the faith, then there would have been no schism. It is the failing of men that cause such schisms - misunderstanding, pride, ignorance, etc. The faith is One, and when we are all “in Christ”
unity exists naturally. When persons step outside of His Love and His commandments, diviisions happen.

Then, guano, you’re willing to agree with me that the same must hold true for SS. It isn’t SS, or then ST that casues division, it is human sin.

This is an interesting thought. I have always thought of it the other way around - that unity would be restored when SS dissolved

How would the dissolution of SS bring the east and Rome back into unity?

It seems that SS has caused so much fragmentation in the church. It seems like a return to ST would resolve it. But since the two strands of Revelation are both part of the same once for all deposit of faith, it would be equally necessary to return to them both so that unity can be restored.

Don’t you think that this must happen first between Orthodoxy and Rome?

Then again, this is my personal perception, based on my personal view that, without guidance from the Holy Spirit (reconcilation between the east and Rome would be just that), there is no way I can determine which is the one true Church, as both claim to be.
So, I don’t want readers to think that this is somehow an offical Lutheran view point.

Jon

 

[DrPiano]

How would the dissolution of SS bring the east and Rome back into unity?
Jon

Hey Jon,

The dissolution of SS wouldn’t bring the East and Rome back together. The problem, though, with waiting for the Eastern Orthodox ChurchES and Rome to come together is that the differences that continue to separate us are mostly not doctrinal. Rome recognizes the Apostolic Authority of the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops, the Validity of her sacraments, etc. One of the big problems is that there is no one Eastern Orthodox Church. Even if the Greek Orthodox Church were to reconcile with Rome, that may not affect the Russian Orthodox Church in the slightest.

A lot happened back at the time of the great schism - most of which wasn’t a disagreement over doctrine. There was a lot of sin on both sides of the schism - after all our popes and bishops aren’t impeccable (as Luther well knew). And a lot of what continued to keep them apart was geopolitical. Now its centuries of being apart - and there isn’t even unity in the west.

What I do think is telling, though, is that there have been MANY Eastern Churches that HAVE reconciled with Rome. That’s why we have Eastern Catholic churches (which are in full communion). They were Eastern churches that reconciled and entered full communion with Rome. And that’s what would happen if the Russian Orthodox joined - they’d be in communion with the West, but that wouldn’t force the hand of any other Eastern Orthodox Church. So in a way… what you’re looking for has happened. But I think you’re looking for more unity from the East than there actually is.

 

[paul_c]

Hey Jon,

The dissolution of SS wouldn’t bring the East and Rome back together. The problem, though, with waiting for the Eastern Orthodox ChurchES and Rome to come together is that the differences that continue to separate us are mostly not doctrinal. Rome recognizes the Apostolic Authority of the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops, the Validity of her sacraments, etc. One of the big problems is that there is no one Eastern Orthodox Church. Even if the Greek Orthodox Church were to reconcile with Rome, that may not affect the Russian Orthodox Church in the slightest.

A lot happened back at the time of the great schism - most of which wasn’t a disagreement over doctrine. There was a lot of sin on both sides of the schism - after all our popes and bishops aren’t impeccable (as Luther well knew). And a lot of what continued to keep them apart was geopolitical. Now its centuries of being apart - and there isn’t even unity in the west.

What I do think is telling, though, is that there have been MANY Eastern Churches that HAVE reconciled with Rome. That’s why we have Eastern Catholic churches (which are in full communion). They were Eastern churches that reconciled and entered full communion with Rome. And that’s what would happen if the Russian Orthodox joined - they’d be in communion with the West, but that wouldn’t force the hand of any other Eastern Orthodox Church. So in a way… what you’re looking for has happened. But I think you’re looking for more unity from the East than there actually is.

I think this is a very good point. There isn’t one Orthodox church. There are many:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_organization

and there are 21 eastern churches that have already entered into communion with Rome

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Thanks, Joey, and no apology needed. Would you agree that, even with Cyprian’s quote, that there has been and continues to be a disagreement between east and west (and between Catholics and (I’ll be quite specific) Lutherans within the west, exactly what papal infallibility, or more broadly, universal jurisdiction means? What it is supposed to look like, and how it is carried out?
It is this ongoing disagreement that I reference.

Thanks, again.

Jon

Jon,

Sorry for being late on the response. I’ve had a busy week with year end finals, baseball, etc.

Yes, I would agree that there are disagreements about universal jurisdiction. The east seems to think that the Patriarch of Constantinople should be the first among equals (atleast it seems that way traditionally), while the west (Catholics) seem to think that the bishop of Rome should be the head of the visible church on earth. Personally, I think that there should be someone who is the head of the visible church, and I would rather have that be the pope than (in my case now) the bishop of the ELCA. That is the way I see universal jurisdiction - someone being the leader of the entire visible church on earth, and I think that should be the pope based on Scripture and Tradition.

I hope my answer is sufficient.

Thanks

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

If by “this command,” you’re referring to 1 Corinthians 4:6, then that’s the only place I know of that uses the words “not beyond what is written.”

Yes that is what I was asking. Thanks.

If I understand the objection–and correct me if I do not–it seems that you’re saying sola scriptura isn’t true because scripture itself points to oral teaching.

I haven’t made any objections really, I just asked some questions.

If so, my reply would be as follows. First, sola scriptura, as historically understood by Protestants, isn’t the denial that apostolic teaching had an existence in oral tradition prior to becoming scripture.

Could you elaborate on the bold part a little? I think you are saying that there was Sacred Tradition but that it was all written down in Scripture. If this is so I would ask for a verse that may suggest this but I just want to be sure that this is what you are saying.

Sola scriptura is the claim that what we have in scripture is “sufficient,” not “exhaustive.”

Fair enough. It’s your belief I will let you define it. I would think though that it would entail more than that. Final, or only authority etc. What about being the norm that we judge things by like you had said?

Actually, I’d agree with you, especially if what he was saying face to face was doctrinal in nature. But for all we know, he could have been dealing with budgetary issues or other mundane items.

Not so sure about that if it would make the reader “complete” in their joy.

The point, however, is that we don’t know what those fact-to-face conversations entailed.

We do know that the writer would have rather tell him face to face and that it would make him “complete” in joy. I wasn’t bringing this up as an objection to Sola Scriptura, but rather this comment that you made:

Scripture is the norm to which we are to conform, whether we read about it in scripture or not.

Was Scripture the norm in 2 + 3 John? Whether we know what was spoken in the face to face conversation doesn’t matter. What matters is that the writer didn’t say, “look to scriptures” or “follow what ever I write to you”. What he did say was (paraphrasing )
“Hey rather than write this down I’ll come speak with you about this and you will be complete”

Providence did not see fit to preserve that information for us. But what we do have is sufficient to know what we need to believe for salvation. That’s the claim of sola scriptura.

So where does this fit then?

Scripture is the norm to which we are to conform, whether we read about it in scripture or not.

I’m glad you agree with this. I wonder if you would agree, however, with the point I was making–namely–that Jesus’ words here also suggest his own view on scriptural authority vis-a-vis that of the Pharisees who also regarded their own traditions as being on par with scripture. Jesus obviously doesn’t hold that view.

Denial of Sola Scripture does not mean denial of Scriptural authority. Just like you have said that acceptance of Sola Scriptura does not equal denial of other sources.

God bless

 

[paul_c]

Let’s take this all the way back. Sola Scriptura was concieved as an alternative authority on Faith and Morals to the Catholic Church. And why did anyone think that was necessary? Isn’t it obvious? They didn’t like the truths that the Catholic Church taught.
And don’t let anyone fool you. This isn’t about the Marian dogma. Whether Mary was immaculately concieved or not, or whether she was assumed into heaven has no bearing on how people live their lives or what is required for salvation.

No, this is about protesting what the Church says God asks of us.

What was eliminated by those that Protested? Well, it came in three categories.

The first was the real focus of the protest: what is required for salvation;

Catholics have always maintained that you can gain the graces necessary for salvation through baptism but that you must stay in the state of grace by avoiding mortal sin and loving God and Neighbor to go to heaven. You are strengthened in in doing so by partaking of the sacraments, doing works of mercy and devotion and through prayer.

→ Luther reduced the consequences of sin by declaring that salvation was the result of Faith alone .
→ Calvin went further, taking all responsibility for salvation away from man through his theory on predestination
→ many evangelicals have gone even further, declaring that all that is needed to gain heaven to to make an altar call.

The second category of things that were eliminated or changed by the Protestants were all related to Church Authority which was necessary to justify their changing of the eternal truths about salvation.

→ first, papal authority (which they replaced with sola scripture)
→ Then, the priesthood, because it wasn’t possible for the Protestants to maintain without apostolic succession. They replaced this with ministers, pastors, presidents, etc.
→ Finally, the sacraments, because without the priesthood, the sacraments are invalid. These were replaced with rites, memorials or alter calls.

The third category of things eliminated were ones of human convenience:

→ celibacy for the clergy
→ days of fast and abstinence
→ the rules against divorce
→ the rules against contraception
→ the rules against abortion
→ the sinfulness of unmarried sex, whether homo or hetero sexual.
→ the llimiting of the preisthood to males

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

This is one of my beefs with SS. How can one,with any intellectual honesty, claim that scritpure is the ultimate authority, when it does not say this of itself.

It does claim this about itself. You can find in scripture plenty of evidence for the concept that “scripture” has final normative authority. But–and here’s the part you seem to have trouble grasping–such evidence could only ever function as “proof” (in the strict sense), if one already holds that scripture has such final normative authority, long before one went to the text to find such evidence in the first place.

So on what basis would one hold that view? The answer is God who reveals through his word. We know to look to scripture because God reveals his word to us through it. I cannot come up with any other reason to go to scripture to look for confirmation for any belief, including the belief that we’re to go to scripture to look for confirmation for our beliefs.

When I do look to scripture for confirmation, I find it. You may not. But that doesn’t surprise me. Catholics will claim that they can squeeze all kinds of doctrines out of scripture (i.e., their version of “material sufficiency” which allows one to simply take it on faith that everything is in scripture at least in germ form). And yet the doctrine of scripture itself which is plainly articulated and illustrated over and over again, is denied.

So while 1 Corinthians 4:6 gives us a clear and explicit illustration of the application of sola scriptura to the issue of pride and personality cults in Corinth, Catholics will deny this. But these same Catholics will say, “Hail favored one” means that Mary was conceived without sin. Mind boggling.

 

[EricFilmer]

It does claim this about itself. You can find in scripture plenty of evidence for the concept that “scripture” has final normative authority…

When I do look to scripture for confirmation, I find it. You may not…

…So while 1 Corinthians 4:6 gives us a clear and explicit illustration of the application of sola scriptura to the issue of pride and personality cults in Corinth, Catholics will deny this.

In 1 Corinthians Paul is addressing the importance of the virtue of personal humility. First he gives a string of Old Testament quotes which warn against boasting:

1Cor 1:19 refers to Isaiah 29:14
1Cor 1:31 refers to Jeremiah 9:24
1Cor 3:19 - 20 refers to Job 5:13 and Psalm 94:11 (which some Bibles number as Psalm 93)

In light of this, what does Paul mean when later, in 1Cor 4:6, he says not to “go beyond what is written”?

1. Objectively speaking, the natural presumption of the reader is he means that for the sake of the virtue of humility, the Corinthians should stay in line with the teachings he quoted from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Job and Psalms. This is the context of the letter. The letter was not crafted because the Corinthians were formulating doctrines beyond authentic Christian teachings.
2. There is nothing to indicate that Paul’s references to “what is written” equals Sola Scriptura. The concept of Sola Scriptura goes way beyond what is actually supported in the text.
3. If Paul was an adherent of Sola Scriptura, why didn’t he clearly write it? Why didn’t he simply teach it? If he spent just one minute to outline Sola Scriptura in just one of his letters then everyone would be an adherent of Sola Scriptura. Consider what you said in the above quote: “When I do look to scripture for confirmation, I find it. You may not.” But if Paul explicitly taught Sola Scriptura then everyone would find it when they looked for it, because it would be there for all to see. After all, when we look for the Beatitudes we find them, don’t we? You claim that Paul was an adherent of Sola Scriptura, but seeing as it was never explicitly stated in the Old Testament, why wouldn’t he clearly teach it in his own writings, especially if he is worried about violations against it? The obvious answer to such questions is that Paul never explicitly taught Sola Scriptura because he did not believe it.
4. If you want to use 1Cor 4:6 as a basis for Sola Scriptura, then you also must not “go beyond what is written”, and previously in this letter Paul says that “what is written” is Isaiah 29:14; Jeremiah 9:24; Job 5:13 and Psalm 94:11. Your Bible, therefore, would only contain these passages, because the addition of anymore passages would be going “beyond what is written.” Of course, the irony is that this would also mean throwing out 1Corinthians. Even if this notion of Scripture is defined in a broader context, your Bible could certainly not include anything written after 1Corinthians, because Paul refers to what is written, and makes no reference to what shall be written.

But these same Catholics will say, “Hail favored one” means that Mary was conceived without sin. Mind boggling.

That’s because…
**1) ** The Catholic eisogetical explanation of Luke 1:28 (“Hail, full of grace” / “Hail, favored one”) is backed up by Sacred Tradition. Sola Scriptura is not.

2) The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not have to be derived explicitly from Scripture in order to be true. Moreover, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not contain an inherent contradiction. Now, compare this with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not found explicitly in Scripture, but it demands that, for the sake of validity, all Christians doctrines have to be. As I have stated before, it fails its own test. Therein lies the contradiction. And your claim that Sola Scriptura “is a principle not a doctrine” is just mincing words. Whatever you want to call it, it is still not in Scripture and therefore violates its own standard.

 

[paul_c]

It does claim this about itself. You can find in scripture plenty of evidence for the concept that “scripture” has final normative authority. But–and here’s the part you seem to have trouble grasping–such evidence could only ever function as “proof” (in the strict sense), if one already holds that scripture has such final normative authority, long before one went to the text to find such evidence in the first place.

So on what basis would one hold that view? The answer is God who reveals through his word. We know to look to scripture because God reveals his word to us through it. I cannot come up with any other reason to go to scripture to look for confirmation for any belief, including the belief that we’re to go to scripture to look for confirmation for our beliefs.

When I do look to scripture for confirmation, I find it. You may not. But that doesn’t surprise me. Catholics will claim that they can squeeze all kinds of doctrines out of scripture (i.e., their version of “material sufficiency” which allows one to simply take it on faith that everything is in scripture at least in germ form). And yet the doctrine of scripture itself which is plainly articulated and illustrated over and over again, is denied.

So while 1 Corinthians 4:6 gives us a clear and explicit illustration of the application of sola scriptura to the issue of pride and personality cults in Corinth, Catholics will deny this. But these same Catholics will say, “Hail favored one” means that Mary was conceived without sin. Mind boggling.

Miguel,
this post most assuredly points to the biggest issue with sola scriptura. As you note, it is the readers predisposition based on their faith traditions that matters most in interpreting scripture. You note that in YOUR Tradition, people are predisposed to seeing sola scriptura in 1corinthians 4:6 and so they do. You also note that Catholics are predisposed by OUR tradition, to see " Hail Mary, Full of Grace", as proof of the immaculate conception. And so it is.

It is our traditions that unlock the meaning of scripture. The difference of course, it that OUR Traditions eminate from the people that actually wrote the scripture and thus are credible. YOURs however, eminate from men like Luther and Calvin, who thought they understood what the sacred authors wrote better than the authors themselves. This is of course, not credible