Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[EricFilmer]

As a side note to anyone going through this thread, I hope no one is dissuaded by this enormous string of posts I have placed this morning. But I am nothing if not thorough. I tend to give point-by-point rebuttals in CAF.

This may be an accurate description of some Jews, but not all. Jews had various ways of distinguishing the relative authority of scripture to other scriptures and oral tradition to other traditions and to scripture. The books of Moses, for example were “core canon” for all Jews. The prophets likewise were considered inspired—but not quite as core as Moses. The Sadducees, for example, seem not have regarded the books of the prophets as canon, which is why Jesus makes his case for the Resurrection the basis of God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—the God of the living, not the dead. (Notice too that scripture was sufficient to correct their error, even though the extent of scripture was limited here.) Then there were the writings, which were of a lesser authority. But all of these “were written,” and therefore could trump oral Torah. Jesus demonstrates this in refuting the Corban rule, which for the Pharisees was part of the word of God since they thought tradition was needed understand the Law and the Prophets correctly. Jesus makes the exact opposite point by correcting their errant tradition by appealing directly to scripture.

The Jews believed that both the written Torah and the oral Torah were revealed to Moses by God. If you claim that they believed the written Torah trumped the oral Torah then you need to back that up. Jesus was not dismissing the oral Torah in general, but only certain teachings from the Traditions of the Elders that contradicted the true meaning of the Law.

But there was scripture. And it was sufficient to function as their rule of faith. “Not beyond what is written.” “Scripture cannot be broken.” Is there a comparable statement about “Sacred Tradition?” Is there even such a concept as “Sacred Tradition” mentioned in scripture?

With the exception of the person of Jesus (the ultimate revelation of God) and the epistles, ALL revelation came through Sacred Tradition. Some of it was eventually preserved in writing, and some of it wasn’t. Moreover, the concept of Sacred Tradition is taught in Judaism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, so it is most certainly considered an aspect of God’s revelation. You are the one who presumes that God’s revelation has to be confined to Scripture and then require Scripture to validate Tradition. In other words, even though Tradition can be distinguished from Scripture, you want adherents of Tradition to prove its validity within the confines of Sola Scriptura.

(Continued in my next post…)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

As you can see, Miguel, I have now posted sizable string of posts in response to your latest material directed to me. Within my posts I issued a number of challenges, so I will reiterate them below in the interest of convenience:

The Challenges for Miguel

Challenge #1
If you continue to disagree with my 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 “a”).

Challenge #2
Give me the chapter and verse that shows the Corinthians elevating Paul, Apollos or Cephas “on par with that of Christ himself”.

Challenge #3
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 at some point in the many centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation. I expect to see clear statements about Scripture being the ultimate and final norm of revelation to which both Tradition and the Church are subject to.

Challenge #4
In order to prove the claim of Sola Scriptura that the Bible Alone is sufficient to formulate all Christian doctrines, use 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.

And the following challenge was not posted earlier; I’m putting this in as a last minute addition:

Challenge #5
God has always worked in the lives of his people through covenants. This is the fundamental aspect of his revelation. If it is indeed God’s desire that his people utilize Sola Scriptura then it is perfectly reasonable to expect to see it as an aspect of his covenants with humanity, but we don’t. Therefore, I challenge you to give me a reasonable response to the following questions:

a) God established a covenant with Adam. Why didn’t God command Adam to write anything?

b) God established a covenant with Noah. Why didn’t God command Noah to write anything?

c) God established a covenant with Abraham. Why didn’t God command Abraham to write anything?

d) Although God did not establish a covenant with Moses (the covenant of Abraham was already in effect), it is at this point in salvation history where we see God’s revelation being committed to writing. But why didn’t Moses teach Sola Scriptura? And why have the Jews traditionally accepted that the revelation to Moses from God was expressed in both a written and oral format?

e) Jesus established the new covenant with all of humanity, and he taught this through the Apostles. Why didn’t Jesus tell his Apostles to write anything (aside from aspects of the Book of Revelation)? If Jesus adhered to Sola Scriptura and taught (or expected) the Apostles to do likewise, why did the Apostles wait decades to write the gospels? If they were adherents of Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t writing the gospels have been a priority?

 

[Tomster]

As a side note to anyone going through this thread, I hope no one is dissuaded by this enormous string of posts I have placed this morning. But I am nothing if not thorough. I tend to give point-by-point rebuttals in CAF.

The Jews believed that both the written Torah and the oral Torah were revealed to Moses by God. If you claim that they believed the written Torah trumped the oral Torah then you need to back that up. Jesus was not dismissing the oral Torah in general, but only certain teachings from the Traditions of the Elders that contradicted the true meaning of the Law.

With the exception of the person of Jesus (the ultimate revelation of God) and the epistles, ALL revelation came through Sacred Tradition. Some of it was eventually preserved in writing, and some of it wasn’t. Moreover, the concept of Sacred Tradition is taught in Judaism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, so it is most certainly considered an aspect of God’s revelation. You are the one who presumes that God’s revelation has to be confined to Scripture and then require Scripture to validate Tradition. In other words, even though Tradition can be distinguished from Scripture, you want adherents of Tradition to prove its validity within the confines of Sola Scriptura.

(Continued in my next post…)

Keep on truckin’ brother. I’m following every word. Great job:thumbsup:

 

[Tomster]

(Continued…)

As you can see, Miguel, I have now posted sizable string of posts in response to your latest material directed to me. Within my posts I issued a number of challenges, so I will reiterate them below in the interest of convenience:

The Challenges for Miguel

Challenge #1
If you continue to disagree with my 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 “a”).

Challenge #2
Give me the chapter and verse that shows the Corinthians elevating Paul, Apollos or Cephas “on par with that of Christ himself”.

Challenge #3
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 at some point in the many centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation. I expect to see clear statements about Scripture being the ultimate and final norm of revelation to which both Tradition and the Church are subject to.

Challenge #4
In order to prove the claim of Sola Scriptura that the Bible Alone is sufficient to formulate all Christian doctrines, use 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.

And the following challenge was not posted earlier; I’m putting this in as a last minute addition:

Challenge #5
God has always worked in the lives of his people through covenants. This is the fundamental aspect of his revelation. If it is indeed God’s desire that his people utilize Sola Scriptura then it is perfectly reasonable to expect to see it as an aspect of his covenants with humanity, but we don’t. Therefore, I challenge you to give me a reasonable response to the following questions:

a) God established a covenant with Adam. Why didn’t God command Adam to write anything?

b) God established a covenant with Noah. Why didn’t God command Noah to write anything?

c) God established a covenant with Abraham. Why didn’t God command Abraham to write anything?

d) Although God did not establish a covenant with Moses (the covenant of Abraham was already in effect), it is at this point in salvation history where we see God’s revelation being committed to writing. But why didn’t Moses teach Sola Scriptura? And why have the Jews traditionally accepted that the revelation to Moses from God was expressed in both a written and oral format?

e) Jesus established the new covenant with all of humanity, and he taught this through the Apostles. Why didn’t Jesus tell his Apostles to write anything (aside from aspects of the Book of Revelation)? If Jesus adhered to Sola Scriptura and taught (or expected) the Apostles to do likewise, why did the Apostles wait decades to write the gospels? If they were adherents of Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t writing the gospels have been a priority?

I believe you have just delivered the hammer blow to Miguel’s contradictory position.

I am anxiously awaiting the attempted answers from our arguably adamant adversary.

It should be a hoot!

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

As a side note to anyone going through this thread, I hope no one is dissuaded by this enormous string of posts I have placed this morning. But I am nothing if not thorough. I tend to give point-by-point rebuttals in CAF.

This entire thread has been a phenomenal learning experience. Keep up the great work!

 

[EricFilmer]

Tomster and Jason, thank you for your kind words.

Miguel, as a P.S. to Challenge #4, this includes objectively proving from the Bible alone that Christ shares in the exact same eternal divine nature as that of the Father (and therefore Christ is not simply a created being imbued with divine power). Moreover, if you are anyone else who accepts this challenge, intends on bringing up the Comma Johanneum then I will need to also see a credible scholarly and historical defense of it being authentic Scripture.

Let me also state that I formulated the various challenges of Post #592 based on my understanding of your positions or based upon ramifications of your statements (i.e., I am fully aware that you have never actually claimed to be infallible, but I see it as a ramification of any declaration that your interpretation has to be the correct one despite the fact that my interpretation is completely plausible). If I have misrepresented any of your stances then it is unintentional and naturally I invite your corrections. But just know that I intend on critiquing any such corrections based on material from your past posts.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster and Jason, thank you for your kind words.

Miguel, as a P.S. to Challenge #4, this includes objectively proving from the Bible alone that Christ shares in the exact same eternal divine nature as that of the Father (and therefore Christ is not simply a created being imbued with divine power).

Ah, the Christological controversies revisted. Wonderful! Take the lead Eric. I will be following this with great interest as time permits.

I do have an idea where you will start with this but I will keep my thoughts to myself and allow Miguel to step all over himself on this one.

In the meantime, I shall do some well needed research on this for no other reason than to form an outline in my mind. :idea:

 

[paul_c]

Miguel, I keep coming back to this simple thought. Its ludicrous to claim that Paul was a sola scripturist. After all , his reading of scripture as a Pharisee led him to persecute the church. It was only after he had the vision on the road to Damascus that he because a Christian. His salvation was not from scripture, but from a direct sign from God. Contemplate that.

Also, contemplate that Paul clearly didn’t believe in the sufficiency ot the scripture of his day because he added so much to it with his epistles. After all, Paul taught clearly in Romans that following the Hebrew law was insufficient for salvation, yet that is what the scripture of the day taught.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Reply to Guano:

I think the points you have made about this phrase have merit.

Thank you. I appreciate our candor. But what you give with one hand….

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.

Presumably, however, the Holy Spirit did know and so the problem is resolved. In fact, this objection could be posed for almost everything in scripture. Yet, as Paul observed, the scriptures were given for “our instruction.” That does not mean everything can be generalized into universal, timeless principles. But many things can be, including Paul’s injunction “not to go beyond what is written.”

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.

….You take away with the other. One of the points I made was that the general principle that is asserted or presumed can be applied to scriptures that, at the time, were still future. The psalmist says God’s word is a “lamp unto my feet.” Does that only apply to the scriptures previous to that saying? Or does this apply as well to scriptures yet to be written? When Jesus says, “scripture cannot be broken,” does that apply only to the Old Testament, or does it not also apply to the New as well? Likewise, even Rome applies 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to both testaments. Consider these words from Dei Verbum 11: [Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).] On what basis, then, do you restrict “not beyond what is written” only to the scriptures written up to that point?

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.

That’s an irrelevant objection to sola scriptura, which does not posit that the Apostles had any such intention in the first place.

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.

This is another irrelevant objection to sola scriptura, which is not the denial that God’s Word can exist in spoken form. The question, however, is apart from the New Testament, do we have any access to the “word that you heard from us”? Obviously not. Notice also the performative contradiction in your methodology. In order to make the point you’re attempting to make, you’re actually using the point that I’m attempting to make. This should tell you something. After all, what other source could you cite that would carry the same weight as scripture? Nothing, of course. And that’s precisely the point.

I agree with you about the general principle *

Fantastic!

But the Aposolic Teaching itself, which includes the weaving of the Holy Scriptures into the lesson, is not limited to the Scripture.

That is true, but also irrelevant to sola scriptura, which is not the claim that we have everything the apostles said and taught; rather it is the claim that what we do have is sufficient.

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.

Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with you. For example, even at a local level, “on any given Sunday,” there is a sense in which “the Word of God” is present in the preaching of the word. Surely the Word is a “living word.” But, for the sake of stability, it is also anchored in writing. Thus “it is written.” What is the relation between the two? I should hope that the “content” is the same. I should hope that we all believe that there is nothing in the unwritten word that is not to be found materially in the written word. That’s why we should all reject the idea that if you can’t find a doctrine in the Bible, that we can simply presume that it is contained in oral tradition. This is all the more dubious when the historical record doesn’t begin to mention such beliefs until centuries after the apostles lived.

It requires this inspired Teaching to understand and apply what has been written in the right way.

No, Guano. Scripture doesn’t mention “inspired teaching.” Only scripture itself is inspired. But—and perhaps this is all you intended to say—there can be no doubt that some in the church have the specific gift or charism of teaching.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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.

You would pit Paul against Jesus thereby throwing inerrancy under the bus in order not to have to change your view. Simply amazing. But in point of fact, Jesus never “went beyond what is written.” On the contrary, he always taught in accordance with the Word, retrieved the true intention behind it and disclosed its ultimate fulfillment or meaning. In other words, for Jesus and the apostles, there was no higher norm than the Word of God. No other authority is or ever has been on the same level as God’s word. It is the standard to which Israel and the New Israel (the Church) has always been held. Israel and the Church itself are not that standard.

But it is, Miguel. Paul taught the equal authority of the Church,

Proof please. Where does Paul or anyone put the Church on par with the Word of God?

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”

If Ignatius of Antioch speaks for all “early Christians,” you could safely say this. But you can’t safely assume that Ignatius of Antioch speaks for all Christians—especially those who were living in Rome at the time as they did not yet have a bishop.

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.

Again, the same non-sequitur. It amazes me how you can rightly point out the historical facts and draw the most illogical conclusions from it time and time again. Subjective disagreement does not negate objective truth. That’s true in any venue, including in your church where you can have all kinds of disagreement over magisterial documents and decrees. That does not mean, however, that no objective meaning can be found in them.

Also, Scripture does not define what is a “main thing” and what is not. This again, is the duty of the Church.

I agree. There is no scriptural list of “the main things.” But who ever said there was in the first place? Does that mean, however, that we need a Magisterium to tell us what’s central and what’s not? If you say so, prove it. Show us where scripture itself say we need to have Magisterium to tell us what is important.

Or, we could use sound judgment and common sense. For example, call it intuition, but somehow I find these words from Paul, “I warned you as I warned you before that people who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God,” to talking about one of the “main things,” whereas these other words from Paul, “Bring my cloak that I left in Troas,” do not seem nearly as central. Or do I really need a Magisterium to distinguish the difference? And does that imply that the Magisterium needs an even higher Magisterium to tell the difference and so on? If so, prove it.

this [the idea that God is the authority for His own word] is absurd.

Fascinating.

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.

Scripture + more Scripture = scripture.

But Paul did tell them! [That there is another authority on par with scripture.] 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.

But Guano, is there any reason to suppose that those “traditions” are different in content from what we read about in the very letter itself? And if so, what are they? How would you have access to those other mysterious teachings if not from scripture?

Paul taught them as equal. 2 Thess 2:15

No, he did not. You’re completely misunderstand this verse, Guan. Paul is giving the Thessalonians a way to distinguish his teaching from that of imposters as verse 2 of the same chapter makes clear. Verse 5 shows us that there is no difference between what Paul said in person (“word of mouth”) and what he wrote in his letter (“letter of ours.”) When Paul signs his letter with a distinctive signature (3:17), it’s to give them further proof that it is he, and not an imposter that is writing to them. Nothing in this verse can be universalized into a general principle that the rule of faith for the church is both Scripture and Tradition without doing severe violence to the context of the text.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Reply to Eric:

As you can see, Miguel, I have now posted sizable string of posts in response to your latest material directed to me. Within my posts I issued a number of challenges, so I will reiterate them below in the interest of convenience:

My compliments to you on this idea. I think it’s better than “point-by-point” response at this point in the conversation. That said, I must point out that many of your “challenges” are nothing more than loaded questions in that they proceed from the assumption that you have correctly defined sola scriptura from the outset, when in fact you have not. This suggests, minimally, that you simply do not know how to distinguish the claims that Protestants assert from those that they do not. Or—and I’m just throwing this out there for your consideration—perhaps you’re unwilling to represent our side fairly.

Challenge #1 If you continue to disagree with my 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.

I have already explained my view. I don’t know that I can be any clearer. I do not claim the authority to compel anyone, much less everyone to hold my view, so I do not accept the validity of your challenge on those points. Nor have I claimed that your view is impossible. I do claim, however, that it is implausible.

The crux of the matter is this. Does, “Not beyond what is written,” more likely state an abiding general principle? (My view) Or is it to be read restrictively so that the “saying” only applies to the specific texts prior to 1 Corinthians 4:6 that Paul cites with the formula, “It is written?” (Your view). It’s not a question of which interpretation is possible, but rather which is more likely. The fact that your side of the debate, on so many issues, has to make arguments like yours ought to tell you something. Let me just list some of the kinds of arguments that I have encountered, (and used to make myself):

1. “So long as someone, somewhere in history held the Catholic view on doctrine X, we can claim that that such a belief was “always” held from the beginning.
2. “So long as doctrine X does not contradict scripture, then we can be confident that the belief is at least implicit in scripture.”
3. “So long as my interpretation is not absolutely impossible, then this gives doctrine X a toe in the door so that it can later unfold and “develop” over time.

Of course all such arguments are nothing more than apologetic acts of desperation—the sure sign that the truth is starting to deconstruct the lie—and speaking personally, that’s not an easy thing to experience. You have my sympathy.

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 “a”).

I do not claim infallibility. Your church does. But you cannot prove that without either begging the question or without basing your argument on premises that are themselves fallible.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Challenge #2
Give me the chapter and verse that shows the Corinthians elevating Paul, Apollos or Cephas “on par with that of Christ himself”.

That would be 1 Corinthians 1:12. To claim to be “of” someone is to put that person in a position of authority over you. That’s not problematic in and of itself because there are leaders in the church who do have authority over us. It is only when we elevate those leaders beyond their station when problems ensue. This is what was happening in Corinth, which is why Paul asks rhetorically, “Is Christ divided?” “Was Paul crucified for you”? “Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” Think about it. Paul’s questions are nothing short of an indictment. The very questions disclose Paul’s belief that by putting mere men in the place of Christ, the Corinthians have elevated them to a position that only Christ rightfully holds. Christ was crucified for us—not Apollos, not Paul and not Peter. We are baptized into Christ—not Apollos, not Paul and not Peter. The head of the church is Christ—not Apollos, not Paul, not Peter, nor any of Peter’s alleged successors.

Challenge #3
Quote ONE Jew or Christian EVER defining Sola Scriptura the way you did, prior to the Protestant Reformation. Just ONE!

I’ll give you two:
Jesus: “You err because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God” (Mark 12:24).
Paul: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Here’s the criteria by which we will determine whether or not these two passages imply what the Refomers understood by “sola scriptura.” 1. Do these passages imply that scripture is materially sufficient to make their respective theological points? 2. Do these passages imply that scripture is formally sufficient—that is—clear enough to be understood by those to whom Jesus and Paul cited scripture without having to have a Magisterium or a body of traditions in order to understand them?

The answer is clearly “yes” to both questions. In the first example (which can be multiplied), Jesus corrects doctrinal error regarding the Resurrection on the basis of scripture and nothing else. Jesus does not invoke a body of rabbinical “tradition” in order to make sense of scripture. Nor does he appeal to the “Seat of Moses” so as to have an “infallible” interpretation. He simply appeals to scripture—the fact that God is the God of the living—and infers from this fact that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, not dead. Likewise Paul presumes that if the Corinthians stay within the boundaries of scripture, that this will be sufficient to keep them from getting “puffed up” in that it will prove to them that Christ himself is the Wisdom of God. But this presupposes that when the Corinthians read the texts that Paul cites, they will be able to understand the point Paul is making. That presupposes that those scriptures are clear enough to be understood.

So far, so good. But using this same logic, could not a Catholic counter that Tradition and the Magisterium are also both materially and formally sufficient since they too can be sufficient to establish a point of theology and can both be clearly understood by believers? But sola scriptura claims that only scripture is sufficient in these two ways. So what makes scripture a higher authority than tradition or the magisterium?

The answer is that neither tradition nor the magisterium are infallible, which is why one will never find any example of tradition or the magisterium correcting scripture—but plenty of examples of scripture correcting both tradition and the magisterium. Thus, when we look at the relative weight of all these authorities, we find that scripture alone is the norma normans non normata --the norm that norms and that itself is normed by nothing else. To see how this works, let’s test this on doctrine X.

What makes X true? Is X true simply because the magisterium teaches it? No. The magisterium can only teach X if X is already true. But the magisterium can help us to know that X is true—not because the magisterium teaches X—but because the magisterium is pointing us back to scripture, from which X derives its truth. The same can be said of tradition.

Now lets imagine that tradition is asserting doctrine Y. Do we believe Y is true simply because it has the pedigree of tradition behind it? Or is Y true because it is grounded in scripture? Those doctrines that are in tradition are considered true because they are first in scripture, which typically would explain why they became tradition in the first place. But is this true of every doctrine? No. Sometimes a doctrine can be found in tradition that cannot be found in scripture. In this case, the doctrine is either to be rejected as false or left without a mandate for lacking a sufficient foundation.

Given this further elaboration of sola scriptura, consider anew these phrases from scripture: “Nothing beyond what is written.” “You err because you do not know the scriptures.” “It is written.” “Scripture cannot be broken.” All such phrases are uttered in contexts where matters of faith and/or morals are at stake. All such phrases are uttered with the presupposition that scripture trumps all other authorities, that our beliefs and practices are to conform to scripture (not the other way around), that scripture is clear enough to be understood by reasonable people, and that scripture gets the last say on the matter. I submit to you that nothing comparable is said in scripture about tradition or magisterium. Conclusion: scripture is the norm to which even tradition and magisterium must conform.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I expect to see clear statements about Scripture being the ultimate and final norm of revelation to which both Tradition and the Church are subject to.

There are “clear statements” throughout your Bible about the authority and clarity of the Word of God and nothing comparable about “Tradition” or the “Magisterium.” Here’s a challenge for you: Find in scripture something that clearly sets the Church or its Tradition on the same level as Scripture.

Challenge #4
In order to prove the claim of Sola Scriptura that the Bible Alone is sufficient to formulate all Christian doctrines,

Challenge not accepted. Again, this is not the claim. The “formulation” of doctrine is not the same as the “substance” of doctrine. “Formulations” of doctrine can change. The actual doctrine itself cannot. What makes the Trinity essential doctrine is that the substance of is revealed in scripture. But the formulation of the doctrine is not in scripture. Even “Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” is merely “Trinitarian.” It is not precisely the “Trinity” of later formulation. But why should we believe the later formulation? We believe it because it is a good and faithful interpretation of the truths we find in scripture.

The divinity of God is limited to specifically three persons.

The Father is God: “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).
The Son is God: “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,’ (Hebrews 1:8).
The Holy Spirit is God: “Now the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17).

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 Holy Spirit is a person: “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?’” (Acts 5:3).

After all, one can only “lie” to a person.

The descriptions of the Holy Spirit are not simply descriptions of the power of God in action.

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26)

After all, how likely is it that Jesus is really saying that his Father sends himself?

The Holy Spirit is fully distinct from the Father and the Son.

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26)

I see three distinct persons mentioned here: Jesus is speaking (“in my name”) about “the Father” who will send “the Holy Spirit.”

As you can see, scripture is sufficient for grounding the doctrine of the Trinity. All the precise formulations that came later (“spirations, processions,” etc.) are not spelled out in scripture, but are all definitely grounded therein.

Challenge #5 God has always worked in the lives of his people through covenants. This is the fundamental aspect of his revelation. If it is indeed God’s desire that his people utilize Sola Scriptura then it is perfectly reasonable to expect to see it as an aspect of his covenants with humanity, but we don’t.

But we do. Name a single covenant God made with humanity that you did not first read about in scripture. Remember, “sola scriptura” is the “Formal Principle” of the Reformation—that is—it’s the ground of our knowledge for what God has revealed. Apart from scripture, any talk about covenants is meaningless.

a) God established a covenant with Adam. Why didn’t God command Adam to write anything? b) God established a covenant with Noah. Why didn’t God command Noah to write anything? c) God established a covenant with Abraham. Why didn’t God command Abraham to write anything?

For that matter, why didn’t Jesus write anything? But as I hope to demonstrate, your argument trades not only upon a misunderstanding of sola scriptura, but also a glaring double standard. Your argument is as follows:

1. If God had intended scripture to be the rule of faith, then He would have indicated this in every covenant he made.
2. But there is no such indication.
3. Therefore God did not intend scripture to be the rule of faith.

Reply. Premise 1 is problematic. It’s based on the assumption that we can have a priori knowledge of what God “would” or “would not” do. But we cannot have such knowledge. Further, it simply does not follow that because Adam, Noah, Jesus, et alia, did not write anything down that scripture itself is not our final normative authority.

Your misunderstanding, I believe, lies in precisely the assumption that sola scriptura is the claim that there has always been written revelation. That is not the claim. Sola scriptura is not the claim that revelation has not been delivered in person and in an unwritten form prior to inscripturation. It is the claim, however, that once scripture has been given, it becomes normative, and is now the only infallible authority that we have.

Your double standard is even more problematic. Use precisely the same argument and prove that we need an infallible body of unwritten tradition and an infallible magisterium to tell us what scripture means and/or to supply us with additional revelation that isn’t explicit in scripture or deducible from scripture by good and necessary consequence.

 

[Philthy]

Reply to Eric:
I do not claim the authority to compel anyone, much less everyone to hold my view, … Nor have I claimed that your view is impossible. I do claim, however, that it is implausible.

Implausible sounds awfully subjective to me, almost statistical. You had claimed as one of the tenets of SS that the “objective truth” of Scripture could be known and yet your best claim is to admit that both interpretations are possible and that you, personally, fallibly, find one more plausible than the other. That is bogus IMHO Miguel - something for your consideration.

The crux of the matter is this.

No Miguel, that is not the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is that SS does not arrive at a knowledge of the objective truth of Scripture without - at the very least - someone deciding which interpretations are “more plausible”. Such an approach is not SS, Miguel, it’s SS and something outside of Scripture revealing the alleged objective truth. Can you truly not see that? As you aptly said,

You have my sympathy.

Miguel:

I do not claim infallibility. Your church does.

You have consistently demonstrated the need for someone or something outside of Scripture to arbitrate what the “objective truth” of Scripture is. The problem for your position is that you won’t claim that title for yourself and you won’t grant it to anyone or anything else either. You simply attempt to claim that the objective truth of Scripture can be known by proper exegesis, but that no one can actually claim to know when that exegesis has been properly, infallibly performed. The closest we get is that while several interpretations may be possible, you consider a position more plausible. I wish you well with that position. Again,

You have my sympathy.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

Proof please. Where does Paul or anyone put the Church on par with the Word of God?

How does anyone even know the Word of God?

Because of the Church.

Get it?

The Church brings us the Word of God. It’s that simple. The Church is the oracle of Revelation. It is that plain.

The Church doesn’t put itself above the Word of God, the Church delivers to us the Word of God.

Without the Church, there is NO WORD OF GOD!

Think about it.

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

Quote:
Challenge #3
Quote ONE Jew or Christian EVER defining Sola Scriptura the way you did, prior to the Protestant Reformation. Just ONE!

I’ll give you two:
Jesus: “You err because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God” (Mark 12:24).

This is completely taken out of context. Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees sent to ensare him for demonstrating their lack of understanding of scripture. The quandry of the seven husbands and one wife was presented to Jesus after just having explained the previous teachings with parables of the Roman coin ‘render unto Caesar’ and the vineyard. The wording in Mark 12:24 logically follows His previous satatement from Mark 12:10, “Have you not read this scripture passage: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; 11 by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’?” 12 **They were seeking to arrest him, but they feared the crowd, for they realized that he had addressed the parable to them." **Mark 12:10

Jesus used a parable to expound on the meaning of scripture, as He frequently does, because scripture is not always sufficiently clear. By giving us parables in scripture to explain scripture, isn’t Jesus establishing the need for authoritative explanation? Isn’t it written that, “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”? John 21:25. Doesn’t the New Testament say," And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ…"? Ephesians 4:12. Also note the separation of people who are meant to **equip the holy ones for the work of ministry **and …the body of Christ… Nothing there about equipping scripture to perform those tasks because the tasks are to be performed by those given authority by Christ. Scripture is and was always meant to be a tool for affecting salvation through spoken Word and Tradition.

Paul: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Once again, context. It appears to me that Paul is telling the Corinthians not to read anything into scripture that isn’t there for the sake of their own pride. This hardly seems to be a blanket statement for all scripture. When he says “that you may learn by us” - that’s clearly not sola scriptura. Paul has to explain proper use of scripture to them.

I understand that Protestants have a hard time with context and that is largely due to lack of Authority and Magisterium.

 

[EricFilmer]

I must point out that many of your “challenges” are nothing more than loaded questions in that they proceed from the assumption that you have correctly defined sola scriptura from the outset, when in fact you have not. This suggests, minimally, that you simply do not know how to distinguish the claims that Protestants assert from those that they do not. Or—and I’m just throwing this out there for your consideration—perhaps you’re unwilling to represent our side fairly.

Actually I am examining your own definition of Sola Scriptura, and rather than presented “loaded questions” I am simply formulating perfectly reasonable challenges based on its implications and ramifications.

At this time I think this thread needs a clear presentation in your own words as to what exactly Sola Scriptura is. You may have done that already herein, but I can’t remember. However, I can quickly find and post the definition you gave in your Sola Scriptura Revisited thread (seeing as it was in the OP). So in the interest of time, I will go ahead and cut & paste that here (and I will add some underlines for emphasis). Naturally, if you want to adjust or add to this definition then please do so. It is my sincere desire to discuss Sola Scriptura with you as fair as possible, and on as level a playing field as possible.

1. The argument rests on a confusion between a doctrine (which is derived from a set of propositions) and a principle (which is where the propositions come from). Sola scriptura is axiomatic. It’s a principle. It’s a theological starting point. It’s a presupposition. As such, we don’t look to the Bible for the words, “use only the Bible to derive doctrines,” in order to know that we’re to “use only the Bible to derive doctrines.” To give an analogy from philosophy, God is considered to be the first cause, himself uncaused. In a cosmological argument, we push all the way back to the beginning and what we get to is God. Once you understand that “God” is the eternally self-existing uncreated being, then you know why you can’t ask, “Ah yes, but who created God?” Such a question betrays a misunderstanding of what a principle is. Likewise, if the Bible is God’s word, then we don’t need to pedantically demand that it explicitly spell out that we’re only to use God’s word to establish doctrine. Doctrine is divine teaching and so can only come from the mind of God and so can only be known from God’s word, which is the expression of God’s mind. Sola scriptura is the claim that the extant scriptures are the only infallible access we have to God’s mind. While God’s word can exist in unwritten form for a time, the pattern seems to be that it is eventually inscripturated so that it becomes stable and accessible to His people over time.
2. Sola scriptura is also a slogan of protest–a shorthand way of saying that 3-2 = 1. When 2 of the 3 claimants to infallibility have erred (i.e., the magisterium and church tradition), then the only infallible rule of faith we have left is the divine scriptures–the only one of the three that is “God-breathed.” Here the Bible doesn’t have to say, “only use me for doctrine.” We come to that conclusion quite naturally and inevitably when the church errs in its traditions and then further errs in elevating those to dogmas by magisterial decree.
3. While the Bible doesn’t explicitly say, “Use just the Bible to determine doctrine,” it nevertheless drives us to that conclusion in a number of ways. On the positive side, only scripture is called God-breathed, it is routinely used to settle doctrinal disputes, it alone is used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, and it alone is used to put man-made precepts into proper perspective. When Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to “go beyond what is written,” (1 Cor. 4:6) he is surely presupposing the sola scriptura principle. Apparently it was a slogan. But what could it possibly mean other than making sure all doctrine and practices comply with scripture? So while the Bible doesn’t say, “Use only me for doctrine,” it does spell that principle out in many of its passages or approvingly illustrates people who presupposed that principle.

Moreover, I will add the following statements you made recently (Post #542) concerning the sufficiency of Sola Scriptura. That way we can have your definition of Sola Scriptura and basic elaboration on it in one tidy post. As I did before, I will add some underlines for emphasis.

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.

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.

 

[EricFilmer]

Challenge #1

If you continue to disagree with my 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 “a”).

I have already explained my view. I don’t know that I can be any clearer. I do not claim the authority to compel anyone, much less everyone to hold my view, so I do not accept the validity of your challenge on those points. Nor have I claimed that your view is impossible.

Ok, so you admit that there is more than one possible interpretation, and one of the possible interpretation is not a statement of Sola Scriptura.

I do claim, however, that it is implausible.

1. This is a subjective opinion.
2. Moreover, it shows the requirement of someone outside of Scripture (in this case you) giving an interpretation of Scripture, because the passage in question does not have the clarity to prevent multiple interpretations.
3. And as I pointed out in Post #590: 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.

To summarize my points, you have given one of at least two possible interpretations of 1Cor 4:6 which scholars say is difficult to translate, if not impossible altogether. And you selected what you think is the correct interpretation based on your subjective opinion that mine is “implausible.” And you also admit that your interpretation is fallible, which, by definition, means that you have to admit that you could be wrong. Likewise, you have to admit that my interpretation, which does not support Sola Scriptura, could be correct.

So my question is, how does all this subjectivity measure up to your definition of formal sufficiency from Post #607? In other words, looking back over this summary I just gave, can you honestly say that seeing 1Cor 4:6 as a Sola Scriptura slogan is (to use your terminology) “clear enough (perspicuity) for the stable-minded believer to understand”?

The crux of the matter is this. Does, “Not beyond what is written,” more likely state an abiding general principle? (My view) Or is it to be read restrictively so that the “saying” only applies to the specific texts prior to 1 Corinthians 4:6 that Paul cites with the formula, “It is written?” (Your view). It’s not a question of which interpretation is possible, but rather which is more likely.

I would say that in order to prove the formal sufficiency of Sola Scriptura you have to rule out my interpretation all together. So it is not a question as to which is “more likely.” But I am still interested in you explaining why your interpretation is “more likely” when I have given a perfectly reasonable and plausible explanation as to why Paul told the reader not to “go beyond what is written.” As I said before, he stated “It is written…” a number of times in 1Corinthians, all of which were Old Testament lessons in humility. And then later he wraps it up by reminding them not to go beyond what is written. 1Cor 4:6 need not be anything more than him saying “Remember what I told you about humility and stick with it.”

The fact that your side of the debate, on so many issues, has to make arguments like yours ought to tell you something.

Hey, wait a minute. I thought you were going to clearly explain why my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 is “implausible” and why yours is “more likely.” Did I miss it? I know you have addressed my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 (and more than once) but I fail to see how you honestly demonstrated it to be “implausible.”

And also, let me remind you that in the course of collective 2000-year history of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, 1Cor 4:6 was never interpreted the way you do. Moreover, none of these Churches nor Judaism ever taught Sola Scriptura. They cranked out plenty of catechisms and volumes of rabbinic teachings over the course of millennia and yet none of them ever taught Sola Scriptura. That’s a pretty incredible omission over a huge expanse of time of a principle that you say is sufficiently derived from Scripture and clearly taught by Paul.

So, to use your expression, “This ought to tell you something.” What it tells me, at least, is that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant invention.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Let me just list some of the kinds of arguments that I have encountered, (and used to make myself):

1. “So long as someone, somewhere in history held the Catholic view on doctrine X, we can claim that that such a belief was “always” held from the beginning.
2. “So long as doctrine X does not contradict scripture, then we can be confident that the belief is at least implicit in scripture.”
3. “So long as my interpretation is not absolutely impossible, then this gives doctrine X a toe in the door so that it can later unfold and “develop” over time.

Of course all such arguments are nothing more than apologetic acts of desperation—the sure sign that the truth is starting to deconstruct the lie—and speaking personally, that’s not an easy thing to experience. You have my sympathy.

Well, my argument is that “So long as the same prophetic Spirit that inspired Scripture is as work in the Magisterium to guarantee that it infallibly interprets God’s revelation, Magisterial official teachings on matters of faith and morals convey the truth of God.”

But the topic of this thread is whether or not Sola Scriptura is biblical, so I suggest we stick with that. Playing “devil’s advocate” let me point out that even if the Catholic Church is as messed up as you indicate that doesn’t mean that Sola Scriptura is true anymore than it means Mormon doctrines, Muslim doctrines, Hindu doctrines, etc. are true. In other words, one should be able to determine the truth of Sola Scriptura apart from the validity (or lack of validity) of the Magiesterium.

I do not claim infallibility. Your church does. But you cannot prove that without either begging the question or without basing your argument on premises that are themselves fallible.

For the sake of this thread (i.e., proving that Sola Scriptura is biblical) I don’t have to prove the infallibility of the Magisterium. All I have to do is remind you that your personal interpretations of Scripture are fallible and ask you to fully appreciate the ramifications of that truth. In other words, it is not enough to say that Sola Scriptura is true because it happens to mesh with your subjective, personal and fallible opinion concerning what Scripture might be saying.

Or, as Philthy said to you earlier today…

You have consistently demonstrated the need for someone or something outside of Scripture to arbitrate what the “objective truth” of Scripture is. The problem for your position is that you won’t claim that title for yourself and you won’t grant it to anyone or anything else either. You simply attempt to claim that the objective truth of Scripture can be known by proper exegesis, but that no one can actually claim to know when that exegesis has been properly, infallibly performed. The closest we get is that while several interpretations may be possible, you consider a position more plausible. I wish you well with that position.

Miguel, I will continue my critic of your responses to my challenges as time permits.

 

[justtryin]

An observation about OP haparker321 :
original join date : 14 April 2011

from his homepage:

Customer Contest…
Posted May 20, 2011 by haparker321
Categories: Notes

Prior to publishing my book, I anticipate on getting as many online customers as I can within a 24 hr period.

So here’s the scoop:

On May 31st, 2011, I will be hosting a three day contest for customers to complete a three day task. The goal of this contest is to officially gather together 50 different customers to purchase my book.
•The first ten customers will receive a $5 discount on the book order
•Anyone else who completes the task by the end of the three day period will receive a $3 dollar discount for their purchase.

Rules:
1.This excludes all author requested reviewers.
2.Participants must complete all three tasks and have them in ASAP for the discount.
3.In order for the discount to work, the participating customer must use the code on the author’s book store (To access this bookstore, simply click on the book cover on the main page).
4.No cheating.

Although I’ll be away throughout the week, I anticipate in sending out an automatic email that will give you the code. I hope that you’ll have the patience to endure with that. If there are any additional comments, let me know.

–Parker

My question to OP :
I hope this isn’t all to sell a book.

If this is an inappropriate observation and question, please forgive me and delete this post.
I do not mean to offend. I am just curious about motive and intent concerning this and other threads started by OP.