Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Miguel_Sastre]

If I may jump in here, in regards to your statement that the debate between Satan and Jesus was only ever going to be settled by scripture. It should be noted that it was Satan who was tossing scripture quotes at Jesus and Jesus responded with scripture.

You’re forgetting that Satan started with tests that Jesus responded to with scripture. So it was Jesus who grounded his response in scripture and Satan who attempted, unsuccessfully, to use Jesus’ same methodology against him. Thus we have both positive and negative evidence for the sola scriptura. In addition, we also have the remedy to the problem when scripture is misapplied. Jesus’ solution is to quote scripture correctly. I think that’s worthy of imitation. Notice what Jesus did not do—and what many Catholic apologists routinely do: He did not say, “That’s just your private interpretation.” Nor did he appeal to an outside authority like the Seat of Moses or the Chair of Peter. He appealed to the highest norm there is—the Word of God, hence his response, “It is written,” and not “The constant teaching of the Church has always been…”

You don’t really believe that. If you did then you would baptize infants.

For the record, I do affirm, “All have sinned,” as inclusive of all humanity and no, I would not baptize infants. This isn’t a problem for me because I also reject baptismal regeneration.

After all, ALL DOES MEAN ALL does it not?

That depends on what you mean by “all.” The Bible has a range of meanings for the word, including quantitative, qualitative and hyperbolic meanings. The question is, which meaning does Paul have in mind? The best way to answer that is to read Romans in context. When we get to 3:9, Paul defines “all” for us: “For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” Question: Who is excluded from the category, “Jews and Greeks.” Answer: Nobody.

Then there is the mentally deficient, those whom all christians acknowledge as incapable of sin.

Paul makes no such exceptions. So why do you? I suspect it is because you’re assuming that if such people cannot sin, then they have no sin. But in fact all the children of Adam are sinners “by nature” (Ephesians 2:3). This does not mean, however, that God imputes guilt to them. Romans 5:3 says this: “for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.” In other words, for those who are too young or mentally incapable of being held accountable to the knowledge of God’s law, “sin is not counted.” This does not mean, however, that such souls are not “under sin” (Romans 3:9).

Does all mean all. Of course we know that Jesus was fully human and like us in all ways but sin. If really meant all then Jesus wouldbe included in the all.

I disagree. First, according to Paul, Jesus is our “Great God and savior” (Titus 2:3). Being God, therefore, Jesus does not have the potential to sin, even in his humanity (which was of course perfect). So how can one exclude Jesus from something he could never be apart of in the first place? If I were to say to you, “Put all the apples in the basket, except this orange,” you would rightly object that an orange is not an apple and therefore my “exception” makes no sense. Second, in calling Jesus “savior,” we are naturally lead to the conclusion that he saves us from our sins. But if Jesus had a sin nature and/or sinned himself, he could never have saved us. For it is not only his death on the cross that saved us, but also his perfect life in obedience to God, fulfilling everyone one of God’s righteous demands. It is therefore, prima facie, unthinkable that Paul would ever have thought of Jesus as an “exception,” simply because Jesus is in an entirely different category. He’s the savior. We—including Mary—are the sinners.

You did the old protestant trick of chop quoting, cherry picking, taking out of context; whatever you wish to call it. In the process you apply an interpretation that was not intended by the author.

Taking in its context it is clear that Paul is comparing and contrasting the benefits of being either a Jew or a Gentile. Paul concludes that there is no benefit to being either one. Why? because as he writes “All have sinned…” meaning that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of sin and need salvation.

The Greek word that is interpreted as “ALL” is the word pas. The KJV lexicon says this word can have two meanings. They are:1. individually
each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2. collectively
some of all types…It then adds the following:"… 'the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? “then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?

I would call “all of Judea” a hyperbolic instance of “all.” But I quite agree with your point: “all” can have a range of meanings as I indicated above. The question is, which meaning does it have in “All have sinned?” That’s why I gave the context where Paul specifically defines “all” for us as “Jews and Gentiles.” This is not hyperbolic, but qualitative all. Two categories of people are mentioned. But because these two categories are exhaustive of all humanity, then we also have a quantitative meaning. After all, who, from Paul’s perspective isn’t either a Jew or a Gentile?

 

[SimonArizona]

You’re forgetting that Satan started with tests that Jesus responded to with scripture. So it was Jesus who grounded his response in scripture and Satan who attempted, unsuccessfully, to use Jesus’ same methodology against him. Thus we have both positive and negative evidence for the sola scriptura. In addition, we also have the remedy to the problem when scripture is misapplied. Jesus’ solution is to quote scripture correctly. I think that’s worthy of imitation. Notice what Jesus did not do—and what many Catholic apologists routinely do: He did not say, “That’s just your private interpretation.” Nor did he appeal to an outside authority like the Seat of Moses or the Chair of Peter. He appealed to the highest norm there is—the Word of God, hence his response, “It is written,” and not “The constant teaching of the Church has always been…”

That comparison fails completely. “Thus we have both positive and negative evidence for the sola scriptura.” Jesus answering the devil with scripture is not at all any evidence for “sola” scriptura. You are trying to bridge a connection where there is none. Paul wrote “it is written…” several times while he also commanded keeping the “oral” and written truth, also the traditions.
Jesus did not "appeal to an outside authority like the Seat of Moses or the Chair of Peter…nor “The constant teaching of the Church has always been…” Because He is Master and Lord. Jesus does not appeal to authorites under himself, especially ones he had not established yet. Fail.

First, according to Paul, Jesus is our “Great God and savior” (Titus 2:3). Being God, therefore, -]Jesus does not have the potential to sin, even in his humanity /-](which was of course perfect). So how can one exclude Jesus from something he could never be apart of in the first place? If I were to say to you, “Put all the apples in the basket, except this orange,” you would rightly object that an orange is not an apple and therefore my “exception” makes no sense. Second, in calling Jesus “savior,” we are naturally lead to the conclusion that he saves us from our sins. But if Jesus had a sin nature and/or sinned himself, he could never have saved us. For it is not only his death on the cross that saved us, but also his perfect life in obedience to God, fulfilling everyone one of God’s righteous demands. It is therefore, prima facie, unthinkable that Paul would ever have thought of Jesus as an “exception,” simply because Jesus is in an entirely different category. He’s the savior. We—-]including Mary/-]—are the sinners.

By what authority do you teach these things?

What is the pillar and foundation of the truth for any Christian?

 

[guanophore]

Your claim, then, is that when Paul says “It is written,” that he has only in mind the passages he cited up to this point in his letter and that the phrase itself, (“It is written”) has no wider application. How would you even begin to prove this? I, on the other hand, can show you that “It is written” is a formula that means “scripture says.”

I think the points you have made about this phrase have merit. The problem is that Paul is giving Pastoral instruction, and does not know that his letter will eventually become part of the canon of Scripture. And the even bigger problem, most of the NT had not yet been written, so it would only refer to scripture up to that time.

The Apostles never intended for the Word of God to be confined to writings. They made no attempt to create a full compendium of the faith in their writings.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Therefore Paul really is appealing to a general principle and not only to the specific texts he cites.   If you doubt this, simply ask yourself the question.  Does Paul mean to tell the Corinthians “Go no further than the specific texts I cited, but feel free to go beyond all the texts I did not cite”?

I agree with you about the general principle. But the Aposolic Teaching itself, which includes the weaving of the Holy Scriptures into the lesson, is not limited to the Scripture.
Most of Sacred Tradition lies in how this method is used - drawing from the Scriptures to teach the doctrines of the faith.

How do you know that "not to go beyond what
is written” can be so restricted to only the passages Paul has cited thus far?

I agree that it is a general statement. But, that still does not mean that the Word of God is not at work in the Church as well. It requires this inspired Teaching to understand and apply what has been written in the right way. Jesus taught this to His disciples. They chose faithful men whou could teach others also.

Luke 24:44-46

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, "Thus it is written…

His teaching about how the Scriptures are to be understood and applied went way “beyond what was written” in the understanding of the Jews of His day.

Well I’m glad I’ve moved you this far.  All that is left to demonstrate is that Paul’s concept of scriptural authority is no different is substance from what the Reformer’s meant by sola scriptura.

But it is, Miguel. Paul taught the equal authority of the Church, and the Apostolic Authority that was conferred upon the Bishops. This was so strong that the early Christians believed “where the Bishop is, there is Christ, and the Catholic Church”.

Scripture is authoritative, certainly, but since only persons can exercise authority, giving the Sacred Texts this role is a fatal mistake. One only has to look at the fragmentation that exists among ecclesial communities that espouse this doctrine to see the fruit of it.

 

[guanophore]

I would go about it this way:

1. First, sola scriptura implies material sufficiency for matters of doctrine. Translation: Scripture contains all that we need to know for salvation and scripture is sufficient to equip the believer for living the Christian life. Does Paul believe this about scripture? Of course he does. In fact, even the Old Testament is sufficient in this regard, as Paul clearly spells out in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Paul is not saying that Scripture “equips”. He says that Scripture is useful or profitable in the task of equipping. This task is also only one that can be conducted by persons - not books, however Holy. Elsewhere, Paul shows who is responsible for using scripture in the task of equipping:

Eph 4:10-13
He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…

The Church, and specifically those persons called and gifted by God for this task, is responsible for the equipping of the saints.

I will grant you that the doctrine of SS was invented in a time and place where this was not being done, and those appointed to the duty were not carrying it out. It is understandable that the people wanted to replace the leadership, given their behavior.

1. Second, sola scriptura implies formal sufficiency in that it is clear enough (perspicuity) for the stable-minded believer to understand what is in its pages. Note well. This is not the claim that everything in scripture is intelligible to everyone all the time. Nor is it the claim that scripture needs no interpretation and explanation. It is simply the straightforward claim that God speaks sufficiently clearly in its pages to be understood. The main things are the plain things.

I was just watching a documentary on the Reformation, and there was an accounting of the meeting of Calvin and Luther. Both of them were learned, committed, and experienced, yet they were diametrically opposed when it came to the nature of the Eucharist. Your formulation is easly defeated by just a little history, which makes it clear that plenty of intelligent believers cannot agree on the meaning of the Scriptures. Also, Scripture does not define what is a “main thing” and what is not. This again, is the duty of the Church.

…Paul’s own views of scriptural authority.

I think we are in agreement about the authoritive nature of Scripture. What we seem to disagree about is how Scripture is useful and profitable in the hands of those who are gifted to equip the saints.

1. Did Paul believe that scripture was sufficient to establish the case he was arguing at this point in the letter? Yes.

If this were true, then the believers could have figured it out on their own, without Paul having to draw it out, and give examples.

By his very comment “I have applied this…” he bears witness to the nature and need of Apostolic Teaching rightly dividing the word of Truth.

Paul is teaching the supremacy of Christ as the Wisdom of God in order to combat divisions, which most certainly entails a call to humility so as not to get “puffed up one against the other” (v. 6).

Yes. This is certainly one of the major factors of our separations today.

1. Did Paul believe that scripture was clear enough to be understood by the Corinthians in order to make the points he was making? Again, yes. Paul is taking for granted that God’s word is intelligible to those with functioning faculties and that no other authority is required in order to know what it says because God Himself is the authority for his own word.

this is absurd. If it were true, then why would he have to explain it? Give examples? The passage itself refutes your point.

Paul finds it necessary to “add” to the Scriptures

Rom 15:15-17
15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

He was called to priestly service in the Gospel. Part of that service is to open their minds to the Scriptures.

Christians would learn the saying, “not beyond what is written,” if not the presupposition of the final, normative authority of scripture? If Paul had believed there was some other authority that was on par with scripture, then why not tell the Corinthians not to go beyond that as well?

“It is written” is a very important concept for them to grasp. It was second nature to the Jews, but a new concept to Gentiles.

But Paul did tell them!

1 Cor 11:2-3

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Why would he commend them for keeping these, if they were just the “traditions of men”? And why did the early church believe they were sacred traditions, and on par with the Scriptures?

Paul taught them as equal.

2 Thess 2:15
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.

 

[Philthy]

Sure ,but first allow me to take you back to the context in which I said this. I was responding directly to this claim by PaulC: “I agree with you that there is a real truth out there to be grasped. The problem is that you can’t find it from Scripture alone - otherwise there would be no doctrinal disputes within Christianity.” It’s the “otherwise there would be no doctrinal disputes” part that does not follow from “you can’t find it [objective truth] from scripture alone.” In fact, you can. Scripture has an objective meaning. We use exegesis, not magisterial authority to find that meaning.

One may find objective truth from Scripture Miguel, but you won’t necessarily know that you have found it. It remains largely indistinguishable from the errors derived from Scripture. So when you claim that “we use exegesis…to find that meaning”, what you mean to say is that you use exegesis in pursuit of that meaning. What you actually find is “a” meaning and that meaning *may *be the objective truth of Scripture or it may not, and you don’t have any concrete way of distinguishing for a variety of issues.

The fact that people disagree as to what that objective meaning is does not mean there is no objective meaning to be found.

You are correct. What it means is that recognition of the objective truth as distinguished from falsehood cannot be reliably accomplished by the exegetical method you propose.

Nor does a magisterial decree give objective meaning to a text that it did not already have.

Correct again! **What the magisterial decree does is identify which of the meanings proposed (ie exegetically determined) represents the objective truth which was sought. **

Formal sufficiency is not the claim that there will be no disagreements. It’s the claim that scripture is sufficiently clear that no other revelation or authority external to it is needed to know what that meaning is.

I understand what formal sufficiency is: Scripture, in it’s actual form, is sufficiently clear to be understood. But I have to ask, sufficiently clear under what circumstances exactly? Perfect exegesis? It sounds like an ivory tower definition to me - it has no practical implication. You readily dismiss the fact that dozens of interpretations arise from the “sufficiently clear” Scriptures on any variety of issues by folks who believe they are using proper exegesis and without actually explaining how these misinterpretations arise and how they are to be remedied. You simply reply that formal sufficiency - by definition - has nothing to do with the fact that people will misinterpret Scripture despite it’s formal sufficiency. That is not a very practical approach, in fact it sounds like an avoidance of reality. You havent even begun to explain how these real differences of understanding - by folks who genuinely believe they are engaged in proper exegesis - are meant to be resolved apart from an external authority, and without that explanation your entire formal sufficiency is practically useless since it leaves the objective truth of Scripture unrecognizable as such.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

Where do you see in the Bible God appointing people to an office and charging that office with the specific task of teaching the people of God which books are inspired and which are not—as if the people of God did not already know which was which?

You keep putting the cart before the horse. How were books of Scripture in existence IN THE FIRST PLACE so that they might be recognized by the people of God?

Moses was appointed by God. He wrote books. The prophets wrote books. The Kings of Israel wrote books. These were all people appointed by God. These people appointed by God either committed their words to writing or their successors did. Their successors (authoritative teachers) canonized certain writings as Scripture and some they did not. The people were a part of the process in the same way the Faithful of the Church continue to be in the process today. Their unanimous consent and their united belief along with their authorized teachers made the Scriptures the authority they retain to this day. God uses His people that HE appoints to do His work.

There is nothing Biblical or historical about “the people” just knowing that such and such is Sacred Scripture. Such a belief is woefully naive and ignorant of the process that is employed by God with His people. God ALWAYS leads His people with Authoritative Teachers. There has never been a time in Salvation History that “the people” just knew what to do, and did it, without the aid of any appointed authoritative teachers. It is completely foreign to the entire Old and New Testaments.

What the Reformation has ALWAYS been about, and continues to be vexed by is AUTHORITY. That is why they have Faith alone, Scripture alone, Private Judgment. It is ALL about avoiding, denying and ignoring Authority. God’s Authority. “When they reject you, they reject Me, when they receive you, they receive Me.”

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I agree with you that there is a real truth out there to be grasped. The problem is that you can’t find it from Scripture alone - otherwise there would be no doctrinal disputes within Christianity.

My point was that there is one set of eternal truths. They were entrusted to the Catholic Church to teach. (Matthew 28:18-20). One of the tools that the Catholic church uses to teach is written scripture. BUT scripture alone is insufficient to teach the truth because it can so easily be misunderstood or distorted without proper interpretation. If scripture alone was sufficient to understand what was required for salvation, then you and I would understand scripture in the same way and I think its pretty clear that we don’t.

Refutation: If this were true, Paul, then there would be no doctrinal disputes in Christianity, which I suspect for you means “Catholicism.” But even within Catholicism there is now, and always has been doctrinal disputes. Even by adding two more infallibilities (i.e., Tradition and the Magisterium), you have not eliminated dispute.

When I say Christianity, I meant all those that believe in Christ. And there are no doctrinal disputes within Catholicism. Anyone who cares to educate themselves knows what the Catholic Church teaches - even you. There are those, like yourselves, that refuse to believe what the magesterium teaches, but its not due to a lack of clarity like it is in sola scriptura. Afterall, in Catholicism, you can ask the bishops and the pope for clarification of doctrine. You can’t ask the bible.

In fact, you’ve complicated matters precisely by adding two more infallibilities. Here are just some of the problems that ensue:

1. In addition to defending an inerrant Bible, you also have to defend the inerrancy of Tradition and the inerrancy of the popes and councils. That’s a tall order, especially when the three doctrines that the pope had defined (including his own infallibility!) either contradict scripture or lack a sufficient basis in it in order to bind the conscience of the believer.

You simply need to trust that the Pope teaches inerrantly. There is nothing he says that contradicts scripture.

1. Papal infallibility has actually lead to more, not less dissent within your communion simply because many have come to the conclusion that unless the pope uses his charism of infallibility, everything undefined is up for grabs. Thus there has been an unprecedented tendency toward dissent and disobedience since the 1870 definition.

Papal infallibility has always existed. It was just written down in 1870. And how do you figure that dissent has been higher since 1870 than it was during the 1500s when half of Christianity Revolted? (and then roughly half of those came back)

1. The face-saving need to add a development of doctrine theory to supplement “sola Roma,” since clearly many dogmas that long had been presumed to have been directly taught by Jesus and the apostles are now–in light of a modern historical consciousness–now known not to have been taught by them.
2. The necessity to authorize both historical anachronism and eisegesis in order to read back present dogmas into an age when such beliefs were non existent and then argue that such beliefs were always “implicit” or “latent” or “there in germ form” all along.

Now you are speaking very vaguely about perceived changes in dogma. Be specific if you want to have a valid discussion.

Quote:
And the liability to faulty understanding of scripture can not be overstated

So you are now arguing AGAINST sola scriptura? That has been my point all along. “if you torture the text long enough, you can make it say anything.” For the text to be meaningful, it must be grounded in Sacred Tradition and explained in concert with the Magesterium.

Quote:
Your mistake here is that you don’t recognize that there is nothing that The Catholic Church teaches that is in opposition to scripture. It elaborates on scripture, but it does not contradict it.

Why is it an error to believe in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Who is more credible?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Name a Catholic dogma that can’t be traced back in its essence to the Apostles?

I readily admit that I trust the Catholic Church above all else. Why don’t you? Why do you think you know better than the Catholic Church? And what motivation do you think the Catholic Church has to mislead you? You are so fixated on scripture being the only source of truth that you are blinded to the fact that , as you pointed out above, if you torture the text enough, you can make it say anything you want.

Quote:

Okay, so you are more heretical than Luther or Calvin. How does this make you more credible?

So you saw in a subsequent note that there is archeological evidence for infant baptism during the Apostolic age. Your response was predictable. You simply tried to argue it away. You are too fixated on trying to justify your own predispositions. Wouldn’t it be more profitable for you to actually try to learn the truth? Remember, you said"
If you torture a text long enough, Paul, it can be made to say anything… you have condemned your own position.

 

[inkaneer]

You’re forgetting that Satan started with tests that Jesus responded to with scripture. So it was Jesus who grounded his response in scripture and Satan who attempted, unsuccessfully, to use Jesus’ same methodology against him. Thus we have both positive and negative evidence for the sola scriptura. In addition, we also have the remedy to the problem when scripture is misapplied. Jesus’ solution is to quote scripture correctly. I think that’s worthy of imitation. Notice what Jesus did not do—and what many Catholic apologists routinely do: He did not say, “That’s just your private interpretation.” Nor did he appeal to an outside authority like the Seat of Moses or the Chair of Peter. He appealed to the highest norm there is—the Word of God, hence his response, “It is written,” and not “The constant teaching of the Church has always been…”

I find your argument to be lacking in any support for sola scriptura. Jesus used scripture. So what? Catholics use scripture all the time. That doesn’t make us sola scripturists and it certainly does not support sola scriptura as a doctrine. Jesus could have saved himself a lot of trouble training 12 men to follow Him for 3 1/2 years if He just wrote a book and gave it to them to study. But He only wrote in the dirt and He never commanded his followers to write anything. And not all of His Apostles wrote anything. Over half of them never wrote one word of scripture. But the Bible is not, and was never intended to be, a self study guide to christianity. That is a protestant perversion. It was intended to be a liturgical book to unify the church in the various locales in using the same readings at Mass.

If in Baptism the dead are raised, as Paul says, that sounds a lot like regeneration [reborn] to me.

But that still does not let you off the “ALL have sinned” hook. There is the problem of those people who are so mentally incapacitated that all christians believe they are incapable of sin. Do you include these in your “ALL have sinned” too? Then there are the infants who die within minutes, hours, days, weeks or months of their birth having never attained the age of reason. As understood by all christians the ability to reason [knowing good from evil] is needed to commit sin. Are these included in your, “ALL have sinned” too?

That depends on what you mean by “all.” The Bible has a range of meanings for the word, including quantitative, qualitative and hyperbolic meanings. The question is, which meaning does Paul have in mind? The best way to answer that is to read Romans in context. When we get to 3:9, Paul defines “all” for us: “For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” Question: Who is excluded from the category, “Jews and Greeks.” Answer: Nobody.

I agree that Paul lumps everyone into two categories, that being Jew or Greek [Gentile] but that in no way supports the more strict interpretation of the word ‘PAS’

. As the KJV Lexicon states:

"…*The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile … *

Quite frankly the context of what Paul wrote does not lend itself to insisting on the strict interpretation. And you possess no authority to demand that interpretation especially in light of the obvious exceptions.

Paul makes no such exceptions. So why do you? I suspect it is because you’re assuming that if such people cannot sin, then they have no sin. But in fact all the children of Adam are sinners “by nature” (Ephesians 2:3). This does not mean, however, that God imputes guilt to them. Romans 5:3 says this: “for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.” In other words, for those who are too young or mentally incapable of being held accountable to the knowledge of God’s law, “sin is not counted.” This does not mean, however, that such souls are not “under sin” (Romans 3:9).

Paul makes no exceptions only if you insist on the strict interpretation as you do. BUT, if you accept the more ambiguous interpretation then Paul leaves room for the exceptions. As for Ephesians 2:3 it does not state what you say it does. In context with verse 1 and 2 it states:

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

 

[inkaneer]

I disagree. First, according to Paul, Jesus is our “Great God and savior” (Titus 2:3). Being God, therefore, Jesus does not have the potential to sin, even in his humanity (which was of course perfect). So how can one exclude Jesus from something he could never be apart of in the first place? If I were to say to you, “Put all the apples in the basket, except this orange,” you would rightly object that an orange is not an apple and therefore my “exception” makes no sense. Second, in calling Jesus “savior,” we are naturally lead to the conclusion that he saves us from our sins. But if Jesus had a sin nature and/or sinned himself, he could never have saved us. For it is not only his death on the cross that saved us, but also his perfect life in obedience to God, fulfilling everyone one of God’s righteous demands. It is therefore, prima facie, unthinkable that Paul would ever have thought of Jesus as an “exception,” simply because Jesus is in an entirely different category. He’s the savior. We—including Mary—are the sinners.

Jesus was fully human EXCEPT for sin. Now if you insist that Paul’s use of the Greek word *pas *

 

[Tomster]

You keep putting the cart before the horse. How were books of Scripture in existence IN THE FIRST PLACE so that they might be recognized by the people of God?

Moses was appointed by God. He wrote books. The prophets wrote books. The Kings of Israel wrote books. These were all people appointed by God. These people appointed by God either committed their words to writing or their successors did. Their successors (authoritative teachers) canonized certain writings as Scripture and some they did not. The people were a part of the process in the same way the Faithful of the Church continue to be in the process today. Their unanimous consent and their united belief along with their authorized teachers made the Scriptures the authority they retain to this day. God uses His people that HE appoints to do His work.

There is nothing Biblical or historical about “the people” just knowing that such and such is Sacred Scripture. Such a belief is woefully naive and ignorant of the process that is employed by God with His people. God ALWAYS leads His people with Authoritative Teachers. There has never been a time in Salvation History that “the people” just knew what to do, and did it, without the aid of any appointed authoritative teachers. It is completely foreign to the entire Old and New Testaments.

What the Reformation has ALWAYS been about, and continues to be vexed by is AUTHORITY. That is why they have Faith alone, Scripture alone, Private Judgment. It is ALL about avoiding, denying and ignoring Authority. God’s Authority. “When they reject you, they reject Me, when they receive you, they receive Me.”

Well said Ambrose and thanks.

What Miguel rejects, and all of Protestantism for that matter, is the true nature of the Church.

We Catholics can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.

Though the Church, as a juridical institution, had no proper existence before the death of Christ, nevertheless, during his public ministry, he had outlined its constitution, described what where to be its functions and powers, and prepared the organs through which these were to be exercised.

For while he was fullfilling his function as preacher he was choosing his Apostles, sending
them as he had been sent by the Father (John 17:18), that is to say, as teachers, rulers, and sanctifiers in the community of believers; he was designating him who was to be their chief, and his own Vicar on earth (Matthew 16:17-18); he was making known to them all the things which he had heard from his Father (John 15:15; 17:8, 14); he was prescribing Baptism (John 3:5) as the means by which believers would be grafted into the Body of Christ; and finally, at the close of his life, he was instituting at the Last Supper the admirable sacrifice and the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist.

This preparatory work was ratified by the redemptive act on the Cross. At that moment “the veil of Temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom (Matthew 27:51),” the Old Law was abolished and the Messianic Kingdom on earth came into being. The Church, thus brought to birth, was, so to say, formally constituted on the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit animated the Mystical Body, infusing each of its organs with his own power and endowing the whole with life and vigor and abiding fruitfulness

Thus, within the limits of the New Testament writings, we can discover three successive states of Christ’s Church:

(a) an inchoative , or initial period, during the lifetime of the Founder, when he announced and prepared the Kingdom of God

(b) its foundation, beginning with the death of Jesus, by which the Old Law was done away with and the new Messianic Kingdom, the Church, instituted

(c) its definitive existence with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost when the Church, both as a collectivity and in its individual members, became instinct with divine power, and began as a social organism the new life which was to continue “even to the consummation of the world (Matthew 28:20).”

Miguel and Protestants reject the above. Why? Their name betrays them. They are “protesters”. That is what they have been trained to do. Their own oral tradition encourages it and puts a stamp of approval on it. Consequently, they will always be divided as history has shown us.

 

[Tomster]

That comparison fails completely. “Thus we have both positive and negative evidence for the sola scriptura.” Jesus answering the devil with scripture is not at all any evidence for “sola” scriptura. You are trying to bridge a connection where there is none. Paul wrote “it is written…” several times while he also commanded keeping the “oral” and written truth, also the traditions.
Jesus did not "appeal to an outside authority like the Seat of Moses or the Chair of Peter…nor “The constant teaching of the Church has always been…” Because He is Master and Lord. Jesus does not appeal to authorites under himself, especially ones he had not established yet. Fail.

By what authority do you teach these things?

What is the pillar and foundation of the truth for any Christian?

And the answers are:

(1) In Miguel’s case, his own. Quite simply, Protestant tradition has given him the authority to do so. Not thinking, that by doing so, they were creating a new Tower of Babel.

(2) Easy answer. Apologetics 101 if I may say. Why, the Church of course (It’s right in the Bible Miguel). Since Protestantism has such a warped belief of the true nature of the Church its easy to understand why Miguel is struggling so very hard to present his case. By doing so he is being shown, time and again the contradictions of his belief system.

Protesting, its in his blood.

 

[EricFilmer]

Your claim, then, is that when Paul says “It is written,” that he has only in mind the passages he cited up to this point in his letter and that the phrase itself, (“It is written”) has no wider application. How would you even begin to prove this?

I don’t have to prove it. You have claimed that Paul “clearly” teaches Sola Scriptura in his epistles. I say that your claim is false. I have given a perfectly objective and proper exegetical explanation for Pauls’ directive to not go beyond what is written which has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Therefore, you cannot claim that he “clearly” teaches it.

I, on the other hand, can show you that “It is written” is a formula that means “scripture says.” Therefore Paul really is appealing to a general principle and not only to the specific texts he cites. If you doubt this, simply ask yourself the question. Does Paul mean to tell the Corinthians “Go no further than the specific texts I cited, but feel free to go beyond all the texts I did not cite”? To ask such a question is to answer it.

As I have pointed out, Paul tells us “It is written…” a number of times in 1Corinthians and then summarizes by saying not to go beyond what is written. This summary need not have any wider application other than him simply reminding his reader what he stated earlier. There need not be a wider Sola Scriptura application, nor do we need to wonder if Paul desired his reader to have the freedom to go beyond the cited texts. All that has to be going on in these passages is Paul instructing his readers about what the OT teaches about humility, and then reminding him to stick within those guidelines in order to practice this virtue.

Bare assertion on your part, no matter how many times you assert it, isn’t a substitute for argumentation. How do you know that “Not beyond what is written” can be so restricted to only the passages Paul has cited thus far? In other words, on what basis would you argue that such a saying is not in fact a general principle, but only an idiosyncratic statement?

All I have to do is prove that Paul does not “clearly” teach Sola Scriptura. All you are able to do is pull subjective personal opinions about what Paul might be saying. I’m simply showing other alternate possible interpretations. But in order to prove Sola Scriptura you have to give objective scriptural proof, not subjective opinion. After all, the rule you are trying to demonstrate is “Sola Scriptura” and not “Sola Scriptura & Miguel’s Opinion.” So far you have been doing a remarkable job at violating the rule of Sola Scriptura in attempting to prove it.

Well I’m glad I’ve moved you this far. All that is left to demonstrate is that Paul’s concept of scriptural authority is no different is substance from what the Reformer’s meant by sola scriptura. I would go about it this way:

1. First, sola scriptura implies material sufficiency for matters of doctrine. Translation: Scripture contains all that we need to know for salvation and scripture is sufficient to equip the believer for living the Christian life. Does Paul believe this about scripture? Of course he does. In fact, even the Old Testament is sufficient in this regard, as Paul clearly spells out in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

And therefore you’ve just demonstrated the insufficiency of the New Testament. Do you really believe that the Old Testament is sufficient for the formulation of all the various Christian doctrines?

1. Second, sola scriptura implies formal sufficiency in that it is clear enough (perspicuity) for the stable-minded believer to understand what is in its pages. Note well. This is not the claim that everything in scripture is intelligible to everyone all the time. Nor is it the claim that scripture needs no interpretation and explanation. It is simply the straightforward claim that God speaks sufficiently clearly in its pages to be understood. The main things are the plain things.

It’s good that you recognize that Scripture is in need of explanation and interpretation. After all, no text, biblical or otherwise, can guard itself against erroneous interpretation. But I will take this a step further and point out the need for an authoritative interpreter such as the Church there will be debates over exactly what it says. There are lots of “stable-minded believers”, who were adherents of Sola Scriptura, who have disagreed over essential Christian doctrines which resulted in great divisions in their communities. This was one of the immediate effects the Sola Scriptura mentality had among the Reformers. Therefore I disagree with your assessment that the text of the Bible presents God’s revelation “sufficiently clearly in its pages to be understood” for the simple fact that there is wide-spread differences in understanding.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

If the preceding is a fair, albeit incomplete definition of sola scriptura, then we can pose the following questions regarding Paul’s use of scripture in 1 Corinthians, and what we can reasonably infer about Paul’s own views of scriptural authority.

1. Did Paul believe that scripture was sufficient to establish the case he was arguing at this point in the letter? Yes. As you noted, Paul is preaching humility. I think that may be a little too broad to function as an adequate summary of his teaching thus far. I would simply add that Paul is teaching the supremacy of Christ as the Wisdom of God in order to combat divisions, which most certainly entails a call to humility so as not to get “puffed up one against the other” (v. 6).

Your stance is that 1Corinthians 4:6 is a Sola Scriptura statement. If this is true then Paul wrote it to address a violation the Corinthians were making against the principle of Sola Scriptura. A violation against the principal of Sola Scriptura is the formulation of an official Christian teaching which contradicts Scripture (or is not sufficiently supported by Scripture). Therefore, I challenge you to give me the chapter and verse from 1Corinthians where Paul notes this violation happening. In other words, what specifically is the violation 1Corinthians is to be applied to? (And acting with pride is not a violation of Sola Scriptura because no teaching is being formulated).

1. Did Paul believe that scripture was clear enough to be understood by the Corinthians in order to make the points he was making? Again, yes.

Yeah? So? Because these passages are clear in their teachings concerning humility and pride then that means that Scripture is the final norm of authority for the formulation of all Christian doctrines? That is an unsubstantiated leap in logic you are making.

Paul is taking for granted that God’s word is intelligible to those with functioning faculties and that no other authority is required in order to know what it says because God Himself is the authority for his own word.

This is a purely subjective interpretation and assumption that you are trying to draw out of the passage in question. Give me the book, chapter and verse where Paul actually says anything even close to your accession that “no other authority is required in order to know what it says.”

And “Scripture Alone” was certainly not enough for the Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-40. The Holy Spirit was right there with the Ethiopian, but rather than inspiring the Ethiopian to understand the meaning of the text he brought Philip, a deacon of the Church, to interpret it for him.

Moreover, Peter certainly didn’t think that Paul’s epistles were intelligible to those with functioning facilities. He said much of what Paul taught was difficult to understand and subjected to be twisted by others.

If so, then Paul believed exactly what the Reformers believed about the sufficiency of scripture.

Well, I have demonstrated that your line of reasoning is faulty. And instead of trying to show that Paul believed exactly what the Reformers believed about the sufficiency of Scripture, how about showing me where Paul said exactly what the Reformers said about the sufficiency of Scripture. You claimed that Paul “clearly” teaches Sola Scriptura, but have not shown this. One possible interpretation in the face of alternate interpretations is not a “clear” teaching, especially when your interpretation fails to have any historicity prior to the Protestant Reformation.

You could also look at it this way. What are the conditions for the possibility of having the expectation that a community of Christians would learn the saying, “not beyond what is written,” if not the presupposition of the final, normative authority of scripture? If Paul had believed there was some other authority that was on par with scripture, then why not tell the Corinthians not to go beyond that as well?

As I have stated before, Paul said “It is written…” a few times, and then said not to go beyond what is written. His statement about “not going beyond what is written” need not be anything more than him reminding them to stick with what he said earlier about the importance of practicing the virtue of humility.

If you continue to disagree with this interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 then I challenge you to:
a) Clearly explain why your interpretation is the correct interpretation that all Christians must observe and why my interpretation cannot be true.

b) Clearly explain why you have the power of infallibly defining Scripture (which is what is needed for anyone to act in the manner outlined in #1).

(For the sake of convenience I will reiterate this challenge at the end of this current string of posts)

 

[EricFilmer]

I just did. So did you. The Corinthians are forming personality cults around individual leaders—not unlike your church does with Peter and his alleged successors. The practice stems from at least two false doctrines that are implicit in Paul’s indictment of their behavior. First, the Corinthians are positing a poly-cephalous church. But for Paul there is only one head of the church—Christ. They are also dividing the church. But for Paul there is only one body of Christ. It may be that their lack of humility or pride or whatever that is problematic. But to reduce the entire issue to merely this, is—well—overly reductionist, in my opinion.

Polycehalous, huh? Wow, I had to look that one up. Well, assuming that I understand this botany reference correctly and your application of it to 1Corinthians, this is what I have to say…

The Corinthians were getting caught up taking pride in their own particular groups, arguing over who “had the better guru”, so to speak. Paul was reminding them that they and the leaders of each group were all in the service of Christ, the head over them all. It was a problem with behavior, not doctrine. For your polycehalous application to work, you would have to demonstrate that the Corinthians were envisioning a Church with a number of separate, yet equal, heads, and declaring that such is the way things are supposed to be in the eyes of God. But they were not making this claim, but only taking an inordinate amount of pride in their respective leaders.

Moreover, you could not stop there to sufficiently prove your argument. In order to prove that 1Corinthians 4:6 is a Sola Scriptura statement, you then have to prove that this polycehalous mentality was in violation of what is written in the Old Testament.

That said, sola scriptura isn’t only about doctrine. The Word of God also norms our behavior and not just our beliefs. So your objection—that Paul isn’t correcting false doctrine—really isn’t relevant anyway, since Protestants appeal to the sola scriptura principle in matters of morals, not just faith.

Are you suggesting that God’s revelation concerning morality and behavior is relegated to Scripture Alone? This can’t possibly be true seeing as no one had any Scripture until Moses. During the Great Flood God judged the morality of everyone on earth, found them guilty of violating morality (with the exception of Noah) and condemned them accordingly. Moreover, the Books of Jonah and Amos show that all people are answerable to God’s law of morality, including pagans who did not have Scripture.

I should think the answer is obvious from the context of the letter. What were the Corinthians doing when they were saying, “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” etc.? They were elevating an individual to a position of authority on par with that of Christ himself.

Exactly how did you come to this conclusion? And how is this conclusion “obvious”? Give me the chapter and verse that shows the Corinthians elevating Paul, Apollos or Cephas “on par with that of Christ himself”. (For the sake of convenience I will reiterate this challenge at the end of this current string of posts)

On what basis does Paul rebuke/correct this error?

He doesn’t for the simple fact that such an error didn’t exist. Once again, he was correcting prideful behavior, not heresy that elevated certain Church leaders to the status of Christ.

He does so solely on the basis of scripture. He says, “It is written,” to make his case. He does not say, “As the Church has always taught.” Further, the mere fact that Paul rejects the Corinthians’ attempt to elevate the apostles beyond their station, shows that Paul rejects the idea that his own authority was equivalent to that of scripture. In other words, Paul holds his own teaching to the standard of scripture. Let’s put it this way. The mere fact that Paul said, “not beyond what is written” and did not say “not beyond scripture, tradition and the magisterium,” ought to say something.

I can simply argue that all he is doing is reminding the Corinthians to behave according to the Bible’s teachings on humility, just as a Catholic priest might do today. You are drawing far more out of this than what is supported by the text.

That may be the case. But this does not imply that tradition is on par with scripture. For example: The divinity of Christ is taught in both scripture, the Nicene creed, the Westminister Confession of Faith, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But the reason why the NC, WCF and CCC are all correct in this regard is because what these documents teach are grounded in scripture. Scripture, therefore, has final normative authority here, and we accept those other documents only insofar as they conform to the norm of scripture.

Among other reasons, the Nicene Creed was formulated in response to the Arian Heresy. Arius denied the eternal divine nature of Christ, and he used Scripture to back up his argument. Arius was a heretic, but no one can say that he was not an accomplished exegete. Many of the elements of the Nicene Creed are examples of Scripture needing the support of Tradition, not the other way around.

But he didn’t neglect to teach it. So there is no “glaring omission.” In fact, the fact that he wants the Corinthians to learn the saying, “not beyond what is written,” is a simple reminder to them that scripture—not Apollos, not Paul and not Peter—is the standard to which their own faith and morals must conform.

No, he was telling them to put aside their pride inspired factionalism and remember that they are supposed to be humble followers of the Lord in the service of humanity. This is what a purely objective examination of the text shows.

 

[EricFilmer]

Sola scriptura in historical context was a slogan of the Reformation. Behind the slogan, however, is a principle that has been believed by the people of God in both Testaments and by many of the church fathers. So your attempt to exclude the principle of the sufficiency of scripture from the historical record is not only inaccurate, it’s dishonest.

If you think I am being dishonest about the historical record…

I challenge you to quote ONE Jew or Christian EVER defining Sola Scriptura the way you did prior to the Protestant Reformation. Just ONE! And I don’t mean a bunch of vague references where you say, “And by this he means…” For at least a year you have been able to clearly define what you mean by Sola Scriptura over and over in CAF. Therefore, if it is “sufficiently” found in Scripture and if it was “clearly taught” by Paul then obviously someone could have defined it with the same clarity that you did. So give me that ONE quote!

(For the sake of convenience I will reiterate this challenge at the end of this current string of posts)

Sorry, but “God-breathed” is far from “shaky” as a translation for θεόπνευστος. But I’m not certain why this is relevant to your assertion that Paul—and I quote—“does not directly teach sola scriptura in 2Timothy 3:16.” For the sake of argument, let’s assume that “inspired” is a better translation. How has the equation changed?

It doesn’t have to change for me to make my point. Neither translation proves Sola Scriptura.

The point Paul is making is that scripture has its origin in God. Paul uses no equivalent term to describe anything else like a body of unwritten traditions to which we are bound. In other words, the claim to pedigree that scripture makes for itself is on an order of magnitude higher than any claim that scripture makes for other competing authorities such as the church or tradition.

You have already been shown numerous times in CAF that Paul referred to oral teachings as well as written teachings, tradition as well as scripture. And you are also aware that he said that Church, not Scripture, was the pillar and foundation of truth. Such statements would not have been made by a true adherent of Sola Scriptura.

Yes. And did you know that we Protestants believe that the Old Testament is also sufficient? In fact, the canon at any point in its history is sufficient, even when the canon itself is incomplete. That surprises a lot of Catholics.

Of course it’s surprising, because even the totality of the canon is not sufficient to teach all Christian doctrines. But you can prove me wrong by using a purely exegetical demonstration to teach the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It has to be purely exegetical because as soon as you cross the line into eisegesis then you are no longer relating what the text objectively says, but what it subjectively might mean (in other words, not Scripture but an interpretation of Scripture). More specifically I challenge you to prove the following aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity using a purely exegetical examination of Scripture:

• The divinity of God is limited to specifically three persons.
• The personal attributes for the Holy Spirit in the Bible are not a simple matter of artistic personification as is seen in the OT descriptions of wisdom.
• The descriptions of the Holy Spirit are not simply descriptions of the power of God in action.
• The Holy Spirit is fully distinct from the Father and the Son.

I already concede that other aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity can clearly and objectively demonstrated from Scripture.

(For the sake of convenience I will reiterate this challenge at the end of this current string of posts)

This is because they are confusing the difference between the authority of scripture and the extent of scripture. No Protestant denies that Paul has the Old Testament in mind here. What we deny is that only the Old Testament is inspired simply because that is Paul’s most immediate referent. Once again, Paul is stating both a general principle (i.e., “all scripture is inspired,”) and a specific referent (“the scriptures of your infancy.”) You, however, are trying to drive a wedge between the two.

In 2Timothy 3:15 Paul states, “…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.”

And then in the very next verse, Paul states, “All Scripture is inspired by God for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…”

So you admit that in verse 15 he is specifically talking about the Old Testament but in the very next verse he is suddenly making a Sola Scriptura statement about all the Scriptures that might possibly eventually exist? Isn’t the natural presumption of the reader that when Paul says “All Scripture” in verse 16 he is simply referring to the “sacred writings” reference he made only half a sentence earlier? Am I really “trying to drive a wedge” in going with my interpretation? Moreover, why didn’t any Christians prior to the Reformation interpret 2Timothy 3:16 the way you did?

Also, in order to prove that your interpretation has to be correct, you have to prove that mine has to be wrong. Can you do that?

 

[EricFilmer]

I wonder, however, if you would be willing to be consistent with your own principle. Consider this argument. Catholics argue that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 teaches the general principle of “Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition” as normative for the Church (see Dei Verbum, 8). Of course Paul taught no such thing in this passage. For in context, Paul is simply giving the Thessalonians a way to distinguish his genuine teaching from that of imposters or deceiving spirits passing off false teaching as if it were from Paul. But what teaching does Paul have in mind? 2 Thessalonians 2:5 tells us that Paul is speaking of the teaching that he once taught them in person. Interestingly, it is probably that very teaching that we read about in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. Be that as it may, there is no difference in content between Paul’s oral teaching and what we read about in 2 Thessalonians itself.

All we would be doing here is arguing interpretations. But you don’t claim your interpretation to be infallible, and neither did any of the Reformers.

Sacred Tradition, by its very nature, does not have to be proven from Scripture. Moreover, the concept of Sacred Tradition (including its authority) has been taught throughout the collective 4000-year history of Judaism, Catholicism, all the Eastern Orthodox Churches, all the Oriental Orthodox Churches. I have mentioned this to you before in this thread and at least one other thread, and you have yet to respond to it.

The Church accepted and used Sacred Tradition before Paul even wrote 2Thessalonians, so it is not like the Church later came up with the concept of Sacred Tradition and then tried to wrangle an argument for its validity from 2Thessalonians.

Paul was not asserting an open-ended doctrinal carte blanche called “Sacred Tradition” that the Catholic Church would later populate with unbiblical beliefs such as the Immaculate Conception (1854), papal infallibility (1870) and the Assumption of Mary (1950). On the contrary, Paul had specific teachings in mind—the very ones he already explained to them in person. Keeping the context in mind, we know exactly what those teachings were—namely—all the conditions that must be fulfilled before the Parousia can take place.

A doctrine does not have to be clearly demonstrated from the Bible in order to be valid. If that were so then the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity could be argued to be invalid.

But Catholics are universalizing Paul’s particular into a general principle of authority for the church—i.e. that both written tradition (sacred scripture) and oral tradition (sacred tradition) have the same level of authority. That, however, is not what Paul asserted. Paul was simply telling the Thessalonians how tell the difference between Paul’s teaching and someone pretending to be Paul. To wit, either they could believe what Paul taught them in person (oral statements), or they could go by his genuine letters, which is why he signed them in large letters (2 Thes. 3:17) lest their be any doubt as to who composed the letter.

The authority of the Church was established long before Paul wrote 2Thessalonians. Therefore, no epistle of Paul is needed to prove the Church’s authority.

This is the context in which “hold fast to the traditions,” obtains its meaning. If you’re going to take this command and generalize it into a principle, then what’s to prevent you from doing the same with 2 Timothy 4:13: “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.” What is the principle here? Should we bring cloaks, parchment, and books with us every time we ask Paul to intercede for us in prayer? Or does this apply only if we’re doing this in Troas? Does it have to be parchment? Or can we substitute paper in its place?

This silly example reminds us of the obvious. There is a difference between texts that assert or presuppose a timeless, universal principle while having a specific historical reference, and those texts that merely have a specific historical reference. Call it intuition, but something tells me that “not beyond what is written” applies in a way that “bring the cloak I left back in Troas,” does not.

If Paul was a true adherent of Sola Scriptura then why didn’t he clearly teach it? Why would he make statements about the importance of tradition without clarifying their subordinate role in light of Scripture? And why would the Catholic Church and all the various Orthodox Churches have failed to see this for 1500 years until the Protestants arrived to point it out?

Yes. This means it is “sufficient” for doing all of these things.

“Profitable” means that it is “profitable.” It means that Scripture readily and greatly assists in the endeavors of teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness.

 

[EricFilmer]

Apples and oranges. But I think I see the problem. First, Catholics routinely assume that “sola scriptura” means “only scripture is profitable,” or that “scripture is all we have to equip us for every good work,” as you have admirably illustrated here. The problem, however, is that this is not the claim. Remember, sola scriptura is sixteenth century shorthand for the idea that “scripture alone,” or “only scripture” as opposed to the Catholic Church and its traditions, are binding upon the conscience of the believer. It’s a pithy protest—not a full-blown doctrine. The principle that stands behind “sola scriptura,” however, is the sufficiency of scripture—both material and formal.

Regardless of how you are the Protestant Reformers try to define it, the application of Sola Scriptura is to label as invalid any Christian doctrine that cannot be clearly demonstrated from Scripture. And, of course, there is the practice of turning the blind eye to the Traditions that adherents of Sola Scriptura want to accept, such as the canon of Scripture and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

This is why I don’t think you can make the comparison between the two passages. In saying that scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, correcting etc., Paul is clearly saying that scripture is sufficient to equip the believer for those tasks. Since those tasks have to do with the teaching of doctrine and morals, it follows that scripture is sufficient to teach both doctrine and morals.

And he clearly taught that certain things aside from Scripture can do those tasks as well, which I demonstrated in the post in question.

Your mistake here is a common one. You’re failing to distinguish between sufficiency and exhaustiveness. Sola scriptura is not, nor ever has been the claim that scripture is the only thing that equips the believer to do the work of God, but rather that it is sufficient to do so.

I’m sorry Miguel but this is looking like “smoke & mirrors” to me. It seems that you admit the limitations of Scripture on one hand (“it is not exhaustive”) while saying elsewhere that it contains all that is needed for Christian doctrine (i.e., “it is exhaustive in terms of what we need to believe”). It is used as the final norm for all Christian doctrine but when challenged to provide clear biblical support to give such an awesome principle the proof it deserves it is suddenly more malleable and not as restrictive (and therefore such clear biblical proof is really not needed).

Likewise sola scriptura is not the claim that only the Bible has authority in the church. It is the clam that it has final authority and that scripture is the ground of all other authorities, including that of the church and its traditions.

And therefore you make a claim about Scripture that Scripture does not claim for itself.

If and when a particular church or a tradition differs with scripture, the principle says to use scripture to correct and reprove that church and its tradition, no matter how old that church may be. When a church or tradition agrees with scripture, the principle is to conclude that that church and tradition are indeed authoritative and rightly to be obeyed. This is exactly the presupposition of Jesus when he corrected the Pharisees’ use of the Corban rule.

In light of this, explain why various adherents of Sola Scriptura disagree on such fundamental Christian teachings as infant baptism, women pastors, homosexual marriage, what is and what is not a sacrament, abortion and divorce. How have they used Scripture to “correct and reprove” one another in order to clearly prove whose interpretations of these matters are valid and whose are not?

No, no. Listen. You made the point that if Paul had taught S.S., then everyone would have believed it. My reply is that by that reasoning, we could substitute any belief for SS and make a similar conclusion. For example, If Paul had taught the Trinity, then everyone would have believed it.” Well, at the time of Athanasius contra mundum, probably two-thirds of the world, including the bishop of Rome, denied the Trinity. Does that mean Paul didn’t believe the substance of the doctrine (even if he lived prior to its exact formulation)? Of course not.

You still haven’t refuted my position. Your example of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not applicable because the fullness of this doctrine is not found in the Bible. Some of the early Christians debated the validity of the doctrine because of this very reason. But no one can deny that Jesus said “Love your enemy” because he clearly stated it. Had Paul defined Sola Scriptura in the same manner that you did, it would be there for all to see. Generally speaking, we would all have to agree that Paul taught it because the text would provide objective proof. Whether or not everyone would choose to follow it is another matter.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

How so, exactly? If you acknowledge that “not beyond what is written,” could have a “broader” application, then it would seem this would a boon for me, and a bane for you.

Not unless you consider throwing out everything in the New Testament written after this epistle a “boon”, because that is still what would happen if you give this passage a broader application. Paul referred to what “is written”, not “what is and shall be written.”

Then this commits you to the absurd position that Paul would not be opposed to the Corinthians going beyond any passage of scripture that he did not cite. In other words, “don’t go beyond Isaiah, Job and the Psalm, but by all means ignore Genesis, Exodus and any other scripture that I did not cite.” Is that really the view you wish to defend?

But Paul does not have to be expressing any such wider application one way or another. He told them a few lines of “what is written” in the Old Testament concerning humility and then reminded them not to go beyond this teaching. We don’t have to start pondering what he may or may not be implying beyond this. He was making a specific statement about a specific problem.

Would you apply this same reasoning to John 10:35, when Jesus asserted that “Scripture cannot be broken” (citing Psalm 86:2). Are we to conclude that Jesus intended to tell us that only Psalm 86:2 is unbreakable scripture? Or is it not more likely that Jesus is saying that scripture in general cannot be broken while citing a particular example of the unbreakable scriptures?

But if we were to apply our obtuse reasoning to John 10:35, then all kinds of absurdities follow. After all, since Jesus was citing the Old Testament, then one could argue that only the Old Testament cannot be broken. But would you really want to argue that the New Testament can be broken?

I would say that Jesus’ comment “Scripture cannot be broken” is, indeed, a general statement. It seems he said this as a side comment, which is why Bible translations tend to put it in parenthesis or between dashes. A side comment can, indeed, be a general comment, so I would say that the text supports interpreting this with a general application. This, after all, would be the natural presumption of the reader. But the natural presumption of the reader in 1Corinthians would be a specific and not general application. Paul teaches the Corinthians what the Old Testament says about humility and then reminds them not to go beyond it.

But I will remind you what I said earlier – I don’t have to prove that Paul was not speaking generally when he said not to “go beyond what is written” in order to refute this as a Sola Scriptura statement. It is not an exegetical demonstration of Sola Scriptura.

I think it’s time we mention the elephant in the room here. At the end of the day, all of your attempts to universalize particulars and particularize universals is nothing more than an attempt to make scripture conform to your real rule of faith, which is neither scripture nor tradition, but rather Rome itself. If you would just be up front about that, then we could begin to deal with the real issue—namely, that there is a fundamental choice to be made between sola scriptura (the rule of faith of Jesus and the apostles) and sola Roma (the rule of faith of the Catholic Church).

We seem to see two different elephants here. The elephant I see is:

1. Adherents of Sola Scriptura have no problem articulating their particular definition of Sola Scriptura, but cannot quote one Jew or Christian prior to the Reformation articulating it in the same way.
2. Adherents of Sola Scriptura cannot explain how billions of Scripture-using people have failed to glean Sola Scriptura throughout the collective 4000-year history of Judaism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.
3. Scripture Alone is not sufficient to teach the fullness of all Christian doctrines, even the ones that Catholics and Protestants agree upon, such as the canon of Scripture and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
4. Scripture Alone is not sufficient to prove Sola Scriptura.
5. Scripture Alone is not sufficient in settling the various doctrinal disputes among its adherents.
6. In order to remake Christianity according to their fallible opinions as to how it should be, the Protestant Reformers needed to deny that God’s revelation can be found in Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture, and they needed to deny the authority of the Magisterium to official define revelation. Sola Scriptura is a principle which allows them to accomplish this goal.

 

[EricFilmer]

Again, I’m glad I’ve moved you this far. This is progress in deed if only in the fact that you’re now allowing for a broader application of the passage. But I remain undaunted. I really do think if you look at the passage as is, you will see that Paul himself is asserting a principle of authority and not only the particular application of that principle. In other words—the argument I am making is not, “so just like the Paul urged the Corinthians not to go beyond 5 or so OT passages, so we ought to not go beyond an passage in scripture.” Rather, I am saying that Paul himself is asserting “not beyond what is written,” as a slogan that the Corinthians are to learn and this therefore means, ipso facto, that he is teaching the very principle that stands behind the slogan.

So despite the massive amount of teaching Paul committed to his epistles, your saying that he took the time to teach a slogan, but not the actual principle upon which the slogan is based. As I have said before, if Paul was an adherent of Sola Scriptura, this would be a glaring omission.

To review, “Not beyond,” states a limitation. “What is written,” means scripture in general. Let me quote from the New Jerusalem Bible here: “I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that you can learn how the saying, ‘Nothing beyond what is written’ is true of us: no individual among you must become filled with his own importance and make comparisons, to another’s detriment.” Notice that the NJB opts to call “not beyond what is written,” a “saying.” This is justified on the grounds that the neuter article “to” often sets off a formal quotation. But what are sayings, if not pithy summaries of abiding principles?

In this case it seems that your principle of “Sola Scriptura” is really “Sola Scriptura & NJB Commentary.” Well, you have your commentaries, and I have mine:

Concerning the phrase in question from 1Cor 4:6 –
“The saying is exceptionally difficult to understand. The purpose clause literally reads, ‘so that in us you learn the not above what is written.’ One commentator began his commentary by saying, ‘let us confess at once that it is untranslatable’.” (Raymond Collins, Sacra Pagina: First Corinthians [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1999], 180.

If you are correct, then Paul would be asserting, “learn the saying, ‘not beyond what is written,’ meaning nothing beyond the five citations I’ve made so far.” That hardly seems likely. Far more likely is the claim that he means by “not beyond what is written,” exactly what the Reformers meant by “sola scriptura,” i.e., that scripture is the final norm to which our teaching most conform. Your attempts to get around the obvious are, well, just that—obvious.

Given the testimony I have just provided, objectively speaking no one can definitively state what Paul is “obviously” referring to here. And if your interpretation is the obvious one then why didn’t any Christians use it to declare Scripture to be the “final norm to which Christian teaching must conform” prior to the Protestant Reformers?

Thank you. I appreciate your candor in conceding me this point. Let me respond to the last part of your objection as follows: When Jesus said that “scripture cannot be broken,” in John 10:35, most of the New Testament had not have been written yet. So can we safely conclude that all the scriptures that came after the fact can be broken? I don’t think that would be a safe assumption at all. But if not in John 10:34, then not in 1 Cor. 4:6 either.

I’ve already addressed this earlier. Regardless of how one wants to apply the Scripture reference in 1Corinthians 4:6, the fact remains that Paul never clearly taught that Scripture was the final norm for the formulation of all Christian doctrines, and whatever he meant by “not going beyond what is written” cannot contradict his statements that he teaches orally and through his witnessed example (and a restrictive interpretation of “to not go beyond what is written” would lead to such a contradiction).

Ah. Interesting. So from your point of view, Tradition allows us to read meaning into a text that may not have been what the author had in mind.

Seeing as the author is ultimately the Holy Spirit, I would say “no.” In other words, I think the Immaculate Conception was exactly what the Holy Spirit and the angel Gabriel had in mind when Gabriel said “full of grace.” Sacred Tradition can validate certain eisegetical examinations of Scripture.