Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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.

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.

Very well written.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

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

Indeed!

And the other difference, of course, is that Catholicism acknowledges that she affirms and upholds Tradition.

Miguel et al avail themselves of tradition, yet ostensibly abhor the use of tradition.

Illogical, no?

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, it does not follow. Because we received ST from the Apostles, but not SS. However, I do agree that in all cases, it is human sin that causes schisms, separations, divisions, etc. Human sin,of course, driven by the Evil One, who delights in fragmenting the Body of Christ.

The pre-Reformation Clergy in Europe was not following the Apostolic commandment to hold fast to what was delivered to them, whether by word of mouth, or in writing. Their failure to cling fast to the Revelation of God in Scripture and Holy Tradition caused corruption, without which the Reformation may never had occurred. But the holding of Scripture as part of the Once for All Divine Deposit of faith does not equate to SS the way it is practiced among most of our separated brethren.

Scripture can act as a standard, certainly, but not a “final authority”, since the exercise of authority can only be done by persons, not by books, however holy.

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

Most of the reading I have done from the Orthodox perspective takes the position that the Protestant “churches” are heretical spinoffs from Rome, resulting from departures from the faith. The thinking from the East is that these factions need to be corrected and reabsorbed, then Rome return to orthodoxy, so that she can the be received.

Since SS is the major source of continuing fragmentation (there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons, and almost that may ecclesial communities) the interruption of this practice (spinning out of control) would foster unity.

Another fostering of unity is the one you support, which is that valuing Scripture as a mandatory standard (even if you don’t call it SS) does NOT mean that Sacred Tradtition or Church authority need to be rejected.

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

I think progress can be made simultaneously on all fronts. The Joint Declaration is progress, and needs to continue, as is the reception of the Angilcan communiion. If these efforts parallel our reconciliation with the East, then all parties will be more conciliatory to unity.

 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.

Yes, I had to struggle with this myself. I finally landed on the Petrine gifts, and came to believe that the successor of Peter was meant to be the visible sign of unity.

 So, I don't want readers to think that this is somehow an offical Lutheran view point.

Jon

Sometimes, you are dangerously far from the view of most Lutherans.

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, and in the Early Fathers too, but never “sole” normative authority. It is never separated from the Sacred Tradtiion that produced it. The use of Scripture as an authoritative norm never causes divisions until it is separated from Apostolic faith from which it was penned. Once it is separated, all kinds of strange and divergent understandings emerge.

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.

Not at all, Miguel. Catholics have no trouble affirming the authoritive nature of Scripture. For what was passed down to us from the Apostles is two equal strands of divine revelation , one is writing, and one in practice. It is the separation of them that is troubling. We don’t see in scripture any commandment to cease practicing what was handed down that is outside of scripture, primarily the method through which we understand what is written.

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.

This is entirely Catholic.

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

I do. I can see where people justify slavery, wars, economic oppression, inquisions, crusades, etc. and all the variations of theologies that depart from the Apostolic faith. There appear to be an unlimited number of doctrines and practices that can be confirmed using Scripture, including the idea of separating it from the Tradition that produced it. I have probably learned more in my time here on CAF about how various denominations support their theologies from scripture than I have in the over half century prior.
But then, that is precisely the problem.

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).

Yes, I think this is an erroneous approach. A properly catechized Catholic will know that no doctrine is “squeezed” from Scripture. In fact, none of Catholic doctrine comes from the Scripture, but from Jesus, thorugh the Apostles. The doctrines were whole and entire before a word of them was ever written in the NT. The practice of extracting doctrine from the Scriptures is a Reformation practice that was developed because the practitioners thought they needed to reject the doctrines of the CAtholic Church, and needed a different way to form doctrine instead of receiving it through the Apostolic Succession, which they deemed as irredeemably corrupted.

And yet the doctrine of scripture itself which is plainly articulated and illustrated over and over again, is denied. [/qutoe]

Certainly doctrines that are interpreted outside of what we received from the Apostles.

You see, we have never been freed from the commandment to hold fast to those Teachings.
Miguel Sastre;7949301:

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.

Yes, it is pretty difficult, in the midst of aposolic instruction, to say that the written instruction is of higher authority than what was received in person. The Apostle also makes it clear that what he has written is an example:

1 Cor 4:6
6 I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us

Then there is the fact that the rest of the NT had not yet been written.

If this instruction is to be taken about the entire NT, then we would have only very few documents. The CC went far beyond what Paul had written in I Cor to comprise the 27 books of the NT.

But even SSists go beyond what is written, since SS is not written.

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

I can see your point.

However, for us, it is more that the passage is evidence of what we were taught. Whatever state Mary was in when she was greeting with royal title by the angel reflects the faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles. This doctrine is not “squeezed” from the text, but rather, the text is a reflection of the One Faith that was once for all handed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[Newsy]

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

You miss the point of most Marian Doctrines. The idea of the Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary were believed by the Reformers. The doctrine you elude to is more of a statement about Jesus Christ than about Mary. If Jesus is God, which we agree on, the Mary couldn’t have contained any sin because God cannot tolerate any sin. Therefore if Mary had no sin then it supports the idea of Jesus being truly God and truly man. The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul has a stain on it from Original Sin, and that Baptism washes away that stain. So, is it possible that God kept Mary free from the stain of sin for His Divine purpose? Is it possible that He providentially protected Mary? I think so. Protestants tend to reject Marian Doctrine because they believe it gives her too much credit, however she only received these things as a gift from God, a grace if you will. I say this because I used to be protestant and that was my line of reasoning. Sometimes we reject ideas because of where they originated instead of judging on merit.

 

[dje101]

You miss the point of most Marian Doctrines. The idea of the Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary were believed by the Reformers. The doctrine you elude to is more of a statement about Jesus Christ than about Mary. If Jesus is God, which we agree on, the Mary couldn’t have contained any sin because God cannot tolerate any sin. Therefore if Mary had no sin then it supports the idea of Jesus being truly God and truly man. The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul has a stain on it from Original Sin, and that Baptism washes away that stain. So, is it possible that God kept Mary free from the stain of sin for His Divine purpose? Is it possible that He providentially protected Mary? I think so. Protestants tend to reject Marian Doctrine because they believe it gives her too much credit, however she only received these things as a gift from God, a grace if you will. I say this because I used to be protestant and that was my line of reasoning. Sometimes we reject ideas because of where they originated instead of judging on merit.

Very true. I think this is the “Protestantism vs Catholicism” argument in a nutshell: Protestants reject many Catholic teachings simply because they come from the Church and don’t judge them on scripture as they like to do with everything.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

In light of this [the argument Paul has made based on the OT passages he has cited], what does Paul mean when later, in 1Cor 4:6, he says not to “go beyond what is written”?

He means what he says, i.e., “not beyond what is written.”

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.

Agreed. I have said as much in my blog article on this passage.

This is the context of the letter. The letter was not crafted because the Corinthians were formulating doctrines beyond authentic Christian teachings.

I disagree. Consider these words: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:10-13). The divisions Paul is addressing have implications for ecclesiology, the relative place of baptism and any number of other theological issues. Keep reading throughout the letter and you will find all kinds of doctrinal content.

That said–whether issues of doctrine or issues of practice–the basis for Paul’s argument thus far in the letter is scripture, as you rightly note in giving the passages he has cited thus for–most with the introductory formula, “it is written.”

There is nothing to indicate that Paul’s references to “what is written” equals Sola Scriptura.

Sure there is. When Paul says “not beyond” he is clearly setting a limitation. And when he say “it is written,” is clearly referring to scripture. I challenge you to search out how that phrase is used in scripture and in Judaism and I’m confident you’ll come to the conclusion that “It is written,” refers to scripture. Today we might just as well say, “As the Bible says.” Putting those two concepts together leads to the inevitable conclusion that our final normative authority is scripture. Paul could not have uttered the phrase, nor have expected the Corinthians to agree with it, had he not believed in the sufficiency of scripture.

The concept of Sola Scriptura goes way beyond what is actually supported in the text.

I disagree. While I fully acknowledge that Paul is not directly teaching the doctrine of sola scriptura in this passage, I would point out that the doctrine he is teaching (i.e., the supremacy of Christ as the Wisdom of God) is in fact taught solely on the basis of scripture, and specifically on the passages you cited in your previous post.

If Paul was an adherent of Sola Scriptura, why didn’t he clearly write it? Why didn’t he simply teach it?

The implied argument here is as follows:

1. If Paul believed in sola scriptura, then he would have directly taught it.
2. He did not directly teach it.
3. Therefore he did not believe in sola scriptura.

I would challenge both premises. First, it simply doesn’t follow that Paul did not hold to a belief simply because he didn’t directly teach it. Paul didn’t explicitly teach us the Trinity. It doesn’t follow, however, that he denied it. Paul didn’t directly teach the doctrine of the Incarnation. It doesn’t follow, however, that Paul didn’t hold to it. In fact, we know that Paul indirectly affirms the personhood of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (witness his Trinitarian language throughout his letters) and that he was a monotheist. We also know that Paul believed Jesus to be fully human as well has fully God. Likewise, Paul may not use the terms “sola scriptura,” (no one ever said he did), but he nevertheless assumes the principle that lies behind the slogan.

Second, Paul directly teaches sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16. God breathed scripture is sufficient for the task it was given to do.

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.

Again, this is really poor reasoning on your part. Your argument is as follows:

1. Not everyone is an adherent of sola scriptura.
2. But everyone would be if Paul had spent even one minute discussing sola scriptura.
3. Therefore Paul must not have spent any time discussing it.

Reply. Using that reasoning, we could come up with the following: “If Paul had spent just one minute warning his readers not to indulge in vice, then everyone would be virtuous.” I trust you see the fallacy. The fact that some diverge from a teaching doesn’t imply the teaching was never given.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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.”

First, do you honestly believe this is a good argument? Doesn’t it sound just a bit obtuse? Well it does to me and here is why. In order for you to argue as you do, you have to restrict “what is written” to precisely the passages introduced with that formula prior to 1 Corinthians 4:6, even though the phrase “It is written,” is commonplace in the New Testament and in Rabbinical literature for “scripture.” “It is written,” therefore is a categorical expression that cannot be limited only to the passages Paul has cited. If you were to cite five passages from the CCC and then say, “Don’t go beyond the teaching of Mother Church,” would you expect any of your readers to conclude, “He must mean only those five passages from the CCC. But we can go ahead and ignore the rest of the Catechism and disregard anything else Mother Church has to say.” Likewise, in telling the Corinthians “not beyond what is written,” would you seriously have us believe that Paul would have said, “But go ahead and go beyond all the other scripture that I did not quote?” Is that your considered position? Really?

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.

So your position is, “Don’t go beyond scripture up to the point of 1 Corinthians, but Do go beyond any future written revelation that God might give us?” Is that what Paul is saying? Really?

That’s because…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.

First, I’m glad you acknowledge that the Catholic explanation is “eisogetical.” (Actually it’s “eisegetical.”) But something tells me you meant to say “exegetical.” Be that as it may, what you’re really saying is this: “Although the Bible doesn’t directly or even indirectly say that Mary was conceived without sin, nevertheless, Sacred Tradition allows us to say that the Bible does say this after all.” (You’ll forgive me if I don’t find that explanation to be very plausible.)

Also–if you think there is more testimony for the Immaculate Conception in tradition (i.e., the church fathers) than there is for sola scriptura, you’re dreaming. I’ve already shown you Cyril of Jerusalem on sola scriptura and given you sources from a competent Catholic historian who admits that he held this view. But even Ludwig Ott–published by that bastion of liberalism (TAN), mentions the many fathers and scholastics who denyied that Mary was Immaculately Conceived (pp. 200-201).

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not have to be derived explicitly from Scripture in order to be true.

And that’s a good thing for Catholics. Because if it did, you would have no basis for the dogma.

Moreover, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not contain an inherent contradiction.

I agree that it is coherent with other Marian beliefs. I don’t think it is coherent with the universality of sin as taught in scripture, which allows no exceptions for either Jews or Gentile. All alike are under the power of sin. Since Mary was a Jew, then if Paul thought her to be an exception, there are several places in Romans and Galatians where it would seem almost incumbent upon him mention this.

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.

With all due respect, it is in scripture. But that’s not why it passes its own standard. You’re not grasping something very fundamental to the argument here. Let’s imagine scripture were this explicit: “Not long hence, I will reveal to you a table of contents for all the books in the Bible and these you will use as your sole rule of faith. We’ll call this ‘sola scriptura’ for short.” In other words, if we had both an inspired table of contents and a passage that said, “scripture alone,” what exactly would that prove?

In my view, it wouldn’t prove anything we didn’t already know. Why? For the simple reason that the entire idea of going to consult “the Book,” is prior to what we read in the Book itself. But where did we get this idea from? How do we know that we’re supposed to consult scripture in order to know what to believe? Yet this has always been the practice of the people of God in both Testmants ever since God gave inspired scripture. Why? Because we know enough to know that we’re supposed to obey God’s word. That’s the presupposition of everyone who ever said, “It is written.”

 

[PRmerger]

And when he say “it is written,” is clearly referring to scripture.

To what Scripture was he referring, Miguel? Was it the Torah? The Talmud? The Septuagint?

Clearly, he could not be referring to the Gospels and the NT, which were not yet written.

 

[Newsy]

According to Miguel’s argument it amazes me that the Church was able to function at all for hundreds of years before the Bible was assembled. I find it really wild that the Catholic Church made it even a few decades until the NT was written.
Oh, wait we had Oral Teaching to go by. Thus, the Church succeeded just like Christ promised.

 

[paul_c]

He means what he says, i.e., “not beyond what is written.”

Miguel,
This is ridiculous. Paul taught far more than was written in the scripture of his day. In fact, the entire discussion in acts 15 was about the Jewish Christians objecting to Paul and others bringing the uncircumcised into the church, which they felt was against the Old Testament.

I disagree. Consider these words: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:10-13). The divisions Paul is addressing have implications for ecclesiology, the relative place of baptism and any number of other theological issues. Keep reading throughout the letter and you will find all kinds of doctrinal content.

So why do you miss the big message of St. paul in this passage - the one about divisions in the Church? Aren’t you breeding disunity?

That said–whether issues of doctrine or issues of practice–the basis for Paul’s argument thus far in the letter is scripture, as you rightly note in giving the passages he has cited thus for–most with the introductory formula, “it is written.”

Do you not realize that the Christian faith added much to the scripture of the day? Read Matthew 5, where Jesus clearly refines scripture.

Sure there is. When Paul says “not beyond” he is clearly setting a limitation. And when he say “it is written,” is clearly referring to scripture. I challenge you to search out how that phrase is used in scripture and in Judaism and I’m confident you’ll come to the conclusion that “It is written,” refers to scripture. Today we might just as well say, “As the Bible says.” Putting those two concepts together leads to the inevitable conclusion that our final normative authority is scripture. Paul could not have uttered the phrase, nor have expected the Corinthians to agree with it, had he not believed in the sufficiency of scripture.

Again, it is written might refer to scripture, but you will note that Jesus clearly refines scripture in the sermon on the mount. HE clearly did not believe in sola scriptura.

I disagree. While I fully acknowledge that Paul is not directly teaching the doctrine of sola scriptura in this passage, I would point out that the doctrine he is teaching (i.e., the supremacy of Christ as the Wisdom of God) is in fact taught solely on the basis of scripture, and specifically on the passages you cited in your previous post.

The Old Testament prophesies were used to prove the truth of christianity. But they did not teach EVERYTHING about Christ. Otherwise, Christ would not need to have come.

The implied argument here is as follows:

1. If Paul believed in sola scriptura, then he would have directly taught it.
2. He did not directly teach it.
3. Therefore he did not believe in sola scriptura.

I would challenge both premises. First, it simply doesn’t follow that Paul did not hold to a belief simply because he didn’t directly teach it. Paul didn’t explicitly teach us the Trinity. It doesn’t follow, however, that he denied it. Paul didn’t directly teach the doctrine of the Incarnation. It doesn’t follow, however, that Paul didn’t hold to it. In fact, we know that Paul indirectly affirms the personhood of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (witness his Trinitarian language throughout his letters) and that he was a monotheist. We also know that Paul believed Jesus to be fully human as well has fully God. Likewise, Paul may not use the terms “sola scriptura,” (no one ever said he did), but he nevertheless assumes the principle that lies behind the slogan.

Second, Paul directly teaches sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16. God breathed scripture is sufficient for the task it was given to do.

Again, this is really poor reasoning on your part. Your argument is as follows:

1. Not everyone is an adherent of sola scriptura.
2. But everyone would be if Paul had spent even one minute discussing sola scriptura.
3. Therefore Paul must not have spent any time discussing it.

Reply. Using that reasoning, we could come up with the following: “If Paul had spent just one minute warning his readers not to indulge in vice, then everyone would be virtuous.” I trust you see the fallacy. The fact that some diverge from a teaching doesn’t imply the teaching was never given.

Miguel, Paul never taught that everything was in the Old Testament (the scripture of his day). In fact, he wrote 14 epistles ADDING to it so how could he ever have taught SOLA SCRIPTURA.

 

[PRmerger]

According to Miguel’s argument it amazes me that the Church was able to function at all for hundreds of years before the Bible was assembled.

Yes. For the first 4 centuries there was no Bible.

This puts it into perspective: 4 centuries is from the time the Pilgrims landed until present time.

Imagine having no Constitution from the period that the Pilgrims landed until present day! That truly boggles the mind!

 

[guanophore]

He means what he says, i.e., "not beyond what is written.

I think all those that consider the Scriptures as inspired and inerrant will all agree that "it meahs what it says’. The issue, then, is what does it mean? Catholics read it in the light of what the Aposltes beleived ang taught. Protestants read it after having been separated from that TEaching for 500+ years.

If Paul literally meant “what is written”, that would exclude most of the NT, whichwas not written at that time.

Consider these words: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:10-13). The divisions Paul is addressing have implications for ecclesiology, the relative place of baptism and any number of other theological issues. Keep reading throughout the letter and you will find all kinds of doctrinal content.

I agree. But this would seem to indicate that the doctrines created during the Reformation and since have spawned fragmentation in the Body of Christ are part of the problem.

Putting those two concepts together leads to the inevitable conclusion that our final normative authority is scripture. Paul could not have uttered the phrase, nor have expected the Corinthians to agree with it, had he not believed in the sufficiency of scripture.

Scripture is no doubt normative authority, and sufficient. However, the Scriptures are not able to exercise "authority’ because this exercise can only be conducted by persons, now wirtings, however Holy. As a result everyone reading them believes they are being led by the HS, and we find as many interpretations of it as there are belly buttons.

While I fully acknowledge that Paul is not directly teaching the doctrine of sola scriptura in this passage, I would point out that the doctrine he is teaching (i.e., the supremacy of Christ as the Wisdom of God) is in fact taught solely on the basis of scripture, and specifically on the passages you cited in your previous post.

No, Miguel, it is not. Paul has Apostolic authority, which is why he is able to rightly divide the word of truth to teach these concepts. Jesus taught the Aposltes how to understand and use the Scriptures. They passed this on to their successors, who were able to teach others also. This is the Teaching Authority that Jesus provided for His Church. He is the basis of it.

The implied argument here is as follows:

1. If Paul believed in sola scriptura, then he would have directly taught it.
2. He did not directly teach it.
3. Therefore he did not believe in sola scriptura.

I would challenge both premises.

You would have to! How else can you claim to espouse a doctrine that cannot be found in Scripture?

I notice, though, that when anti- Catholics make this same protest about the Marian doctrines and Paul, this type of challenge is considered unacceptable.

First, it simply doesn’t follow that Paul did not hold to a belief simply because he didn’t directly teach it.

I agree. But, for Catholics, such things that are not explicit in Paul are found elsewhere, and in the Sacred Tradition. SS, on the contrary, is not found in any of these Sources.

Likewise, Paul may not use the terms "sola scriptura," (no one ever said he did), but he nevertheless assumes the principle that lies behind the slogan.

No, Miguel. He assumes the principle of the authoritative and inspired nature of Scripture. He never assigns to the HOlyl Writings the duties that the REformers attempted to give.

Second, Paul directly teaches sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16. God breathed scripture is sufficient for the task it was given to do.

This is a common misunderstanding of this verse. The Scripture is profitable/useful in thest duties, which were given to persons. Paul explains who is responsible for equipping the saints for the work of the ministry, and it is not the Scripture.

I trust you see the fallacy. The fact that some diverge from a teaching doesn’t imply the teaching was never given.

Indeed. And this is the main reason it was not appropriate to change the doctrines of the faith, just because clerics in Europe had become corrupt.

Men are always in need of Reform, but the One Faith, deposited once for all to the Church by the Aposltes, did not need any reform.

Sola Scriptura is one of those unneeded reforms.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
If Paul was an adherent of Sola Scriptura, why didn’t he clearly write it? Why didn’t he simply teach it?

The implied argument here is as follows:

1. If Paul believed in sola scriptura, then he would have directly taught it.
2. He did not directly teach it.
3. Therefore he did not believe in sola scriptura.

I would challenge both premises. First, it simply doesn’t follow that Paul did not hold to a belief simply because he didn’t directly teach it. Paul didn’t explicitly teach us the Trinity. It doesn’t follow, however, that he denied it. Paul didn’t directly teach the doctrine of the Incarnation. It doesn’t follow, however, that Paul didn’t hold to it. In fact, we know that Paul indirectly affirms the personhood of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (witness his Trinitarian language throughout his letters) and that he was a monotheist. We also know that Paul believed Jesus to be fully human as well has fully God. Likewise, Paul may not use the terms “sola scriptura,” (no one ever said he did), but he nevertheless assumes the principle that lies behind the slogan.

Second, Paul directly teaches sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16. God breathed scripture is sufficient for the task it was given to do.

But what if Paul taught against sola scriptura? That is a game changer, is it not? If Paul taught against sola scriptura then how can you argue that he held to the belief if he preached against it? Obviously you can’t without making yourself look very, very foolish. Now then, did Paul preach against sola scriptura? Well, I’m glad you asked. Why, yes, indeed he did. In fact, not only did he preach against it he argued successfully against those who were sola scripturists.

But allow me to comment on the passage you referred to in your post [2 Timothy 3:16] because this passage is not only taken out of context by protestants but it really does not say what you would like to think it says. First let’s look at that verse in the context of 2 Timothy 3:14-17. Paul is writing to Timothy, a man who will become the first Bishop of Ephesus. Paul is probably in Rome awaiting his trial or execution when he writes this second letter to Timothy. Paul writes:

*“14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” *[2 Timothy 3:14-17][RSV]

Notice what Paul says in verse 14, “But as for you, **continue in what you have learned **and have firmly believed, **knowing from whom you learned it.” ** Timothy, of course, did not learn by reading scripture. He learned by hearing Paul preach. Paul was the “whom” in verse 14. As for the scriptures Paul says that ALL scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. **BUT ** Paul does not say that ONLY the scriptures are profitable for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, does he? Does it seem odd that both he and the Holy Spirit left out the sola part? But you of course corrected both of them by adding it. But then look at verse 17. Why is scripture profitable according to Paul? Because it equips us for good works? What ever happened to sola fide? Now we got to work our way to heaven.

But there is more. In this same letter we find Paul telling Timothy in chapter 1:

"*13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have Heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; * [2 Timothy 1:13]

Where is the sola scriptura? Paul is telling Timothy to follow the Oral Tradition.

In chapter 2 Paul writes:

"*2**and what you have HEARD from me **before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.’ * [2 Timothy 2:2]

Here Paul tells Timothy to pass on the faith that Timoty HEARD from Paul to others. Where is the sola scriptura? Are we starting to see a pattern developing here?

Chapter 3 I dealt with above. In chapter 4 we find Paul writing this:

"2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. [2Timothy 4:2-4]

Good heavens! Paul is telling Timothy to preach the word. Why doesn’t he just say, “read the book” ? Again I ask where is the sola scriptura?

Finally, there is Paul’s words to the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15. This verse is the proverbial wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura

"*15 So then, brethren, stand firm and **hold to the traditions which you were taught *by us, EITHER by word of mouth or by letter.

Where is the sola scriptura there? Now, who should I believe here? Do I believe you or do I go with Paul and the Holy Spirit?

 

[mdcpensive1]

According to Miguel’s argument it amazes me that the Church was able to function at all for hundreds of years before the Bible was assembled. I find it really wild that the Catholic Church made it even a few decades until the NT was written.
Oh, wait we had Oral Teaching to go by. Thus, the Church succeeded just like Christ promised.

Good point.

If we examine which Church was there in the first few centuries it would not be a protestant church because there was no bible (sola scriptura). So there had to be a Church that could function without it. That would be the one started by Christ Himself and was guaranteed not to fail. With sola scriptura, the beginning of the Church would only be after Scripture was written and everyone was in agreement to the cannon. Since there were false gospels and epistles written, there had to be an authority to determine valid gospels. It had to be the Catholic Church because no protestant one was around at that time.

 

[EricFilmer]

He means what he says, i.e., “not beyond what is written.”

And yet I can say the same thing. He tells us in 1Corinthians a number of times, “It is written…” and then says to not “go beyond what is written.” In other words, the Corinthians are not to behave against what was taught in those OT passages that Paul specifically quoted, and all of them are in the context of the practice of humility.

Agreed. I have said as much in my blog article on this passage

And in this blog you claimed, “‘Not beyond what is written,’ states a general principle, because Paul states this as a saying that he expects the Corinthians to learn.” And to this I simply say that “Not beyond what is written” obviously refers to what he just finished saying “was written.” But even if it is a general principle, this does not suddenly elevate it to what you claim in your definition of Sola Scriuptura.

I disagree. Consider these words: "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment…”

The divisions Paul is addressing have implications for ecclesiology, the relative place of baptism and any number of other theological issues. Keep reading throughout the letter and you will find all kinds of doctrinal content.

Paul addresses different topics in 1Corinthians, but the context of the “It is written…” statements deal with the virtue of humility, not the danger of developing unorthodox doctrines. If you say otherwise then make a case for it. Tell me exactly what erroneous doctrine (or doctrines) was being formulated by the Corinthians and then tie 1Corinthians 4:6 to it.

That said–whether issues of doctrine or issues of practice–the basis for Paul’s argument thus far in the letter is scripture, as you rightly note in giving the passages he has cited thus for–most with the introductory formula, “it is written.”

Paul never described the authority of Scripture in the way you do when defining Sola Scriptura.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Sure there is. When Paul says “not beyond” he is clearly setting a limitation. And when he say “it is written,” is clearly referring to scripture. I challenge you to search out how that phrase is used in scripture and in Judaism and I’m confident you’ll come to the conclusion that “It is written,” refers to scripture. Today we might just as well say, “As the Bible says.” Putting those two concepts together leads to the inevitable conclusion that our final normative authority is scripture. Paul could not have uttered the phrase, nor have expected the Corinthians to agree with it, had he not believed in the sufficiency of scripture.

Clearly explain how this is an “inevitable conclusion.” Paul could simply be saying that one ought not to be in violation of what is clearly taught in Scripture, and Catholicism teaches likewise. But how does that suddenly mean that Scripture becomes the “final normative authority”?

I disagree. While I fully acknowledge that Paul is not directly teaching the doctrine of sola scriptura in this passage, I would point out that the doctrine he is teaching (i.e., the supremacy of Christ as the Wisdom of God) is in fact taught solely on the basis of scripture, and specifically on the passages you cited in your previous post.

These things are taught both in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Once again, trying to derive your definition of Sola Scriptura from 1Corinthians 4:6 goes way beyond what the text actually says or supports.

The implied argument here is as follows:

1. If Paul believed in sola scriptura, then he would have directly taught it.
2. He did not directly teach it.
3. Therefore he did not believe in sola scriptura.

I would challenge both premises. First, it simply doesn’t follow that Paul did not hold to a belief simply because he didn’t directly teach it.

In my post I did not present this as the only possible conclusion. I was pointing out that if Paul did believe in Sola Scriptura, and he was debating against Christians formulating doctrines outside the practice of Sola Scriptura, then Paul’s neglect to actually teach Sola Scriptura is a glaring omission. And the fact that Sola Scriptura is not explicitly taught in the Old Testament would be an even greater motivation for Paul to go ahead and explicitly teach it in one of his epistles.

Likewise, Paul may not use the terms “sola scriptura,” (no one ever said he did), but he nevertheless assumes the principle that lies behind the slogan.

You are the one who calls it a slogan and then pulls assumptions from it. No one ever saw this as a Sola Scriptura slogan prior to the Reformation.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Second, Paul directly teaches sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16. God breathed scripture is sufficient for the task it was given to do.

No, Paul does not directly teach Sola Scriptura in 2Timothy 3:16. The “God breathed” is a shaky translation at best, and the majority of Bibles, old and modern, Protestant and Catholic, agree on this. Examine this link to see how few Bible translations use the term “God breathed” rather than “inspired by God.” Not even the KJV uses it, or any other traditional Protestant translations. The Greek word in question is θεόπνευστος which does have πνέω as a (presumed) derivative root word, so I agree that the “God breathed” translation is not entirely without merit, but only mostly so.

And now let us look at the rest of what 2Timothy 2:16 says:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2Timothy 3:16, RSV).

And when one considers this in the context of all of Paul’s epistles, here is what it means:

First of all, he clearly means the Old Testament when he says “Scripture” because he just finished referring to the Scriptures that Timothy has “known from childhood” (2Tim 3:15).

The Old Testament is, indeed, “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

But other things are profitable for this as well, such as:
1Timothy 2:21-26 - Here Paul states that purifying oneself from “what is ignoble” makes one “ready for any good work.” But when describing how a person is purified from being ignoble, Paul does not mention the use of Scripture. Instead he talks about shunning youthful passions, aiming at righteousness, faith, love and peace, avoiding senseless controversies, not being quarrelsome, being kind and gentle, etc.

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

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

Again, this is really poor reasoning on your part. Your argument is as follows:

1. Not everyone is an adherent of sola scriptura.
2. But everyone would be if Paul had spent even one minute discussing sola scriptura.
3. Therefore Paul must not have spent any time discussing it.

Reply. Using that reasoning, we could come up with the following: “If Paul had spent just one minute warning his readers not to indulge in vice, then everyone would be virtuous.” I trust you see the fallacy. The fact that some diverge from a teaching doesn’t imply the teaching was never given.

No, your attempt to refute my position does not pan out. You are confusing the concept of Christian belief with individual behavior. For example, Jesus clearly taught us to “love our neighbor” and the forgive everyone. Everyone on the planet has to admit that these are, indeed, Christian teachings because they are explicitly presented in the gospels. A particular Christian may choose to hate his neighbor and not forgive others, but he still has to admit that his behavior is in violation with what the gospels clearly teach. Because Jesus took a few moments to clearly teach us to “love our neighbor”, everyone has to agree that this is, indeed, an authentic Christian teaching.

In the same manner, had Paul (or any of the others who wrote Scripture) clearly taught Sola Scriptura then everyone could point to it and say, “There it is!” Everyone would have to admit that it is explicitly found in the Bible, even if some people would chose not to follow it.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

First, do you honestly believe this is a good argument? Doesn’t it sound just a bit obtuse? Well it does to me and here is why. In order for you to argue as you do, you have to restrict “what is written” to precisely the passages introduced with that formula prior to 1 Corinthians 4:6, even though the phrase “It is written,” is commonplace in the New Testament and in Rabbinical literature for “scripture.”

I also stated that the passage could be considered in a broader way, but this is also problematic for an adherent of Sola Scriptura.

“It is written,” therefore is a categorical expression that cannot be limited only to the passages Paul has cited.

It most certainly can be limited to only the passages he cited. He said “It is written…” three times and uses this to quote four specific Old Testament passages. And then he says not to “go beyond what is written.” From a purely exegetical standpoint, a perfectly valid interpretation of 1Corinthians 4:6 is that he is saying not to go beyond the things that he prefaced with the earlier “It is written…” statements.

If you were to cite five passages from the CCC and then say, “Don’t go beyond the teaching of Mother Church,” would you expect any of your readers to conclude, “He must mean only those five passages from the CCC. But we can go ahead and ignore the rest of the Catechism and disregard anything else Mother Church has to say.” Likewise, in telling the Corinthians “not beyond what is written,” would you seriously have us believe that Paul would have said, “But go ahead and go beyond all the other scripture that I did not quote?” Is that your considered position? Really?

I’m just pointing out the inherent problems with trying to use 1Corinthians 4:6 to prove Sola Scriptura, regardless if one interprets the passage literally or in a broader way. If one examines this passage in a literal sense then one has to only use (as the foundation of Christian doctrine) the specific Bible passages he quoted. After all, anything else would be “going beyond” what he stated “was written.” And yes, I agree that this sounds obtuse, but I am simply conveying what results from a literal interpretation. And I also pointed out that if one interprets this in a broader context, then that is still a problem, because much of the New Testament was not written when he wrote 1Corinthians.

First, I’m glad you acknowledge that the Catholic explanation is “eisogetical.” (Actually it’s “eisegetical.”) But something tells me you meant to say “exegetical.”

Thanks for the correction. I tend to mess that one up, and the spell checker’s dictionary does not have eisegetical (whereas it does have exegetical). But for the record, I did, indeed, mean eisegetical and not exegetical.

Be that as it may, what you’re really saying is this: “Although the Bible doesn’t directly or even indirectly say that Mary was conceived without sin, nevertheless, Sacred Tradition allows us to say that the Bible does say this after all.” (You’ll forgive me if I don’t find that explanation to be very plausible.)

As I said before, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not have to demonstrated from Scripture, either exegetically or eisegetically, in order to be true. But, objectively speaking, the literal translation of the passage in question from Luke allows for at least a basis for the doctrine, even if the fullness of the doctrine goes beyond the confines of a purely exegetical examination. As a side note, you and I actually discussed this in CAF before. (That was almost a year ago so I am surprised that I even remembered it, let alone the exact thread.)

Also–if you think there is more testimony for the Immaculate Conception in tradition (i.e., the church fathers) than there is for sola scriptura, you’re dreaming. I’ve already shown you Cyril of Jerusalem on sola scriptura and given you sources from a competent Catholic historian who admits that he held this view.

You have never given a quote from Cyril of Jerusalem articulating Sola Scriptura in the same manner as you have. In a past discussion with you (in your “Sola Scriptura Revisited” thread) I agreed that Cyril is the best argument for a ECF presenting what can be interpreted as a Sola Scriptura mentality. But, as I also pointed out to you in that thread, in order for Cyril to tell us exactly what books of Scripture we are to be “Sola” with, he had to give us his own canon, based upon his own tradition. Therefore, even if Cyril wants people to stick to the Scriptures, he is unable to stick to the Scriptures in order to tell us what books encompass the Scriptures in the first place. So obviously Cyril knew that the use of Scripture has its limitations in the formulation of doctrine.

But even Ludwig Ott–published by that bastion of liberalism (TAN), mentions the many fathers and scholastics who denyied that Mary was Immaculately Conceived (pp. 200-201).

Fathers and scholastics have debated many other doctrines as well, such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ, whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Original Sin, etc. Debate over a doctrine does not necessarily indicate that the doctrine is erroneous.

(Continued in my next post.)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

I agree that it is coherent with other Marian beliefs. I don’t think it is coherent with the universality of sin as taught in scripture, which allows no exceptions for either Jews or Gentile. All alike are under the power of sin. Since Mary was a Jew, then if Paul thought her to be an exception, there are several places in Romans and Galatians where it would seem almost incumbent upon him mention this.

Maybe, maybe not. If Mary and Jesus are the sole exceptions then Paul could have kept his teachings in the general sense.

With all due respect, it is in scripture.

Book, chapter and verse, please.

But that’s not why it passes its own standard.

Until I see a book, chapter and verse describing Scripture in the manner that you do when you define Sola Scriptura then it does not pass its own standard.

You’re not grasping something very fundamental to the argument here. Let’s imagine scripture were this explicit: “Not long hence, I will reveal to you a table of contents for all the books in the Bible and these you will use as your sole rule of faith. We’ll call this ‘sola scriptura’ for short.” In other words, if we had both an inspired table of contents and a passage that said, “scripture alone,” what exactly would that prove?

It would prove that Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. And when Sola Scriptura is used to test the validity of other Christian doctrines, one could point to such a passage as proof that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, the tool given to us by God for this exact purpose.

In my view, it wouldn’t prove anything we didn’t already know. Why? For the simple reason that the entire idea of going to consult “the Book,” is prior to what we read in the Book itself. But where did we get this idea from? How do we know that we’re supposed to consult scripture in order to know what to believe? Yet this has always been the practice of the people of God in both Testmants ever since God gave inspired scripture. Why?

Not quite. Initially people were to consult what the prophets revealed, and such revelation was initially done through oral tradition. In time, some of such revelation was preserved as Scripture. But the Jews recognized that there was an “oral Torah” in addition to the written one, so they were not adherents of Sola Scriptura.

In terms of the NT, it is this same prophetic Spirit with which the Apostles preached. When the Apostles began their ministry, there was no New Testament yet. The gospels that were initially taught orally were already valid expressions of God’s revelation, regardless of whether or not they were ever committed in writing.

Because we know enough to know that we’re supposed to obey God’s word. That’s the presupposition of everyone who ever said, “It is written.”

Once more, I point out to you that it was God’s practice to give revelation through both Scripture and Tradition. Obeying God’s Word includes both. This is what has been believed through the collective 4000-year history of Judaism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. That means that there have literally been billions of Scripture-using people, all across the world, and over a course of four millennia who never made this Sola Scriptura presumption that you have made.