Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[guanophore]

So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as the rule of faith. This rule has a very specific content, (ALL) of which is contained in Scripture.

Yes, of course. However, the main source of our separations are related to how we understand those scriptures. This is what Sacred Tradition does for us, what it did for Irenaeus. It is the lens through which we read and understand Scripture. When the Reformers jettisoned this perspective, a spawn of opinons, almost as many as belly buttons, resulted. Now the Body is so fragmented as to be almost unrecognizable as being members of the same faith family, some of them denying each other as brethren.

Irenaeus never found a contradiction between what was passed down to Him through Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures.

He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith.

You are creating a false dichotomy again, Algo. No one ever claimed that the two strands are not intertwined. There was never any need to separate them one from the other. That does not make either less “pure”. They are intended to function together this way.

Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture.

No, Algo. The Catholic doctrines were given to her by Christ, through the Apostles. They were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT is a reflection of the faith of the Church, not the Source. Jesus is the Source. This is the major difference between Apostolic faiths and the modern “bible churches”. Modern evangelicals attempt to “derive from Scripture” the truth, rather that receiving it through the paradosis.

The Truths are present in scripture because they reflect the kerygma.

Tradition, therefore is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture.

Part of it, yes. Clearly Paul states this:

2 Thess 2:14-15
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.

One faith, two forms.

We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the Apostolic Tradition was transmitted to the Church.

Yes, but he also says that it was committed through the Apostolic Succession. It was the bishops that were entrusted with the One Faith, and were charged to instruct the faithful with all authority. Their instruction includes the use of Scripture, which is profitable in equipping the saints.

In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain ORAL in nature. It was inscripturated.

And when it was inscripturated, the oral form of it did not “disappear”. Since both are the inerrant and inspired Word of God, both remain imutable. I can understand how the Reformers believed it had been mutilated and corrupted beyond repair, but this cannot happen to the Word of God. The men entrusted with it may be, but the Word itself will accomplish that for which it was sent.

Thus the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture.

I can see your reasoning, Algo, even though I disagree with your premise. The false premise leads to a false conclusion. However, I see that you have worked very hard, done your research, and have fortified yourself so that you are able to reject the Authority appointed by Christ with impunity.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

EricFilmer said:

If Paul is making a Sola Scriptura statement [in 1 Cor. 4:6], then he must be addressing a violation of Sola Scriptura committed by the Corinthians.

That, or he thinks they’re in danger of exceeding the norm of scripture. That’s why he is telling them to learn the saying, “Not beyond what is written.” There’s no reason for them to learn this saying unless they’re going beyond the norm of scripture.

As far as I am concerned, this means that we should see evidence of violation of doctrine.

As far as you’re concerned. But your concerns are not the norm by which we Protestants understand what sola scriptura means. Your repeated attempts to limit the scope of sola scriptura to matters of doctrine strikes me more as a ploy on your part to avoid the clear implications that “not beyond what is written” has for a number of views you hold. On the one hand, if Paul’s words really mean, “Do not exceed the authority of scripture,” then Rome’s rule of faith is in trouble. On the other hand, the claim that sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible—repeated like a mantra by Catholic apologists—is shown to be false in just one verse.

More specifically, the Corinthians would be expressing official beliefs (on matters pertaining to faith and morals) which are not properly supported with Scripture as required by Sola Scriptura.

This is new. Now you’re adding the specific requirement that their beliefs be “official.” That seems to be coming out of left field. Be that as it may, whether “official” or not, the Corinthians’ are clearly out of step with the boundaries scripture imposes.

To be fair, Miguel has stated (in this link and elsewhere) that the application of Sola Scriptura need not be limited to doctrinal issues, but can also address moral issues (in terms of moral behavior, and not specifically official beliefs concerning morality).

That’s a fatal admission your part as far as your argument goes, but a prudent one as far as sanity goes. You’re not going to find any defender of sola scriptura making the claim that scripture norms only our doctrine and not also our behavior—that it is normative for faith, but not morals. Who—in the history of the people of God, has ever claimed, “It is written” only applies to doctrine and not behavior, to faith and not morals? I can’t think of anyone. Can you?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

But he has also asserted that 1Cor 4:6 does, indeed, address doctrine. As a side note, although I do not disagree that adherents of Sola Scriptura believe that this principle can be applied to moral behavior, I personally have never heard it done so. For example, does one ever hear someone say that theft is wrong because it violates Sola Scriptura?

Yes. Jesus said this to the Rich Young Ruler: “You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother’” (Mark 10:19). This command was written by the finger of God himself. It definitely has scriptural backing.

The problem Paul is addressing (as presented in 1Corinthians 1:10-17 and 3:1-16) is that the Corinthians did not properly appreciate the fact that all Christians belong to a universal Church, but instead identified themselves as followers of Apollos, or Paul, etc.

Er…, no. The problem is much deeper than a failure to “appreciate” their place in the church. The problem is that they are causing divisions in the body of Christ by putting mere men in the place of Christ. That’s the implication of Paul’s rhetorical questions: Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? That’s the rationale behind the words, “Do not boast in men” (1 Cor. 3:21). The rhetorical questions and command against boasting cannot arise in the first place unless the Corinthians were doing, or were in danger of doing, precisely what Paul admonishes them not to do.

But nowhere does it say that any Corinthian was declaring his/her community leader to be the head of the Church rather than Christ,

Again, notice how restrictive your criterion is here. It seems that unless the Corinthians explicitly said something like “We follow Apollos” (which they do) “and not Christ,” (which they do not say, but which Paul believes is the natural implication to draw) that only their behavior is in view and not also their doctrine. Paul, however, has a different opinion. For in saying, “I follow Paul,” Paul draws out the implication that they are not following Christ.

Moreover, if the Corinthians had elevated their leaders “to a position that only Christ rightfully holds” then this would entail belief that such community leaders were divine and able to provide salvation.

Hence Paul’s rhetorical question, “Was Paul crucified for you?” I submit that Paul’s question here is precisely the “drastic” conclusion that you think is unwarranted—namely that the mere fact of being overly identified with one of the apostles is tantamount to idolatry. And yes—this has implications for salvation. If not, then explain Paul’s rhetorical questions? Why would he ask, “Was Paul crucified for you?” if nothing doctrinal is at stake?

If this were so, they would be guilty of a far more serious sin than pride, because they would be heretical idolaters.

Bingo!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

As I have stated in other posts, the problem that Paul is addressing is behavior rather than doctrine.

This is a false dichotomy that you would do well do abandon. Paul is dealing with both behavior (pride, divisions, boasting) and doctrine (the Wisdom of God, vicarious atonement (e.g., “was Paul crucified for you?”), baptism (e.g., Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel”), the theology of the cross, etc. All of these issues are integral to the entire argument up to (and even beyond) 1 Corinthians 4:6.

It is one thing to take inordinate pride in one’s Church community leader (i.e., prideful behavior) and quite another to declare one’s Church community leader as head of the Church, considering him to encompass and perform the role of Christ (i.e., a doctrinal belief replacing Christology with “Apollosology”, “Paulology” or “Peterology”, so to speak).

You’re making a distinction here that Paul does not. When we “boast in men” (1 Cor. 3:21), we are putting people in a place that only Christ rightly has. This is why Paul asks, “Was Paul crucified for you?” When Paul says in 4:6, “I have applied [literally, “reformatted”] these things to myself and Apollos on your behalf,” I believe this is what Paul means. By putting himself in the place of Christ on the cross, he is dramatizing their error. But what took place on the Christ? Paul says he died, “ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν” (“on your behalf”). That is, he died in our place (substitutionary atonement). If the issue were a simple matter of pride, why use this kind of rhetoric? Is Paul overreacting here? Or does he see where this pride will lead to (or already has lead to?) To say, “I am of Paul” is no different than saying, “Paul died for me,” as far as Paul is concerned. How are you not seeing this?

But if I understand you correctly, you seem to think that Paul was concerned that this “silly favoritism” could grow worse and worse until one day the Corinthians would reject the supremacy of Christ and declare Apollos, Paul or Peter as the divine head of the Church, in whose name people must be baptized for the remission of their sins, and through whom salvation comes. That is a huge leap in logic when one considers what the text of 1Corinthians actually says, and the tone of Paul’s rhetoric.

The “leap in logic” that you see here didn’t begin with me. It began with Paul when he asked two rhetorical questions: “Was Paul crucified for you?” “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” Tone is a very subjective thing to detect in scripture. I could hear Paul using a bit of sarcasm here, or alternatively, a bit of humor to make his point. Whatever the tone may have been, the words are clear. Paul took the claims to be “of Paul” or “of Apollos” or “of Peter,” as indicative of an attitude or belief that was tantamount to putting any one of the aforementioned apostles into a place that only Christ rightfully holds. Yes—there is pride going on here. No one denies that. But look what it lead to or was leading to. That’s the point of Paul’s rhetoric here.

 

[guanophore]

That, or he thinks they’re in danger of exceeding the norm of scripture. That’s why he is telling them to learn the saying, “Not beyond what is written.” There’s no reason for them to learn this saying unless they’re going beyond the norm of scripture.

Perhaps not, but the fact that Scripture is normative does not equate to Sola Scriptura.

 But your concerns are not the norm by which we Protestants understand what sola scriptura means.

You can only speak for yourself, Miguel, and others that share your definition. There are about as many of them as there are belly buttons. That is because the concept is not defined in scripture, so like all extrabiblical traditions, everyone “does what is right in his own eyes.”

On the one hand, if Paul’s words really mean, “Do not exceed the authority of scripture,” then Rome’s rule of faith is in trouble.

No, Miguel, it certainly is not. The fact that Scripture is authoritative does not equate to Sola Scriptura either.

On the other hand, the claim that sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible—repeated like a mantra by Catholic apologists—is shown to be false in just one verse.

No, Miguel. There are many fine references to to role and benefit of Scripture. Scripture is normative for the Christian, and authoritative. It is useful/profitable for teaching, etc. None of these qualities and roles equate to SS. And, because these passages were written by, for, and about Catholics (the New Testament) there is nothing contained in them that wil in an way put “Rome’s rule of faith in trouble”. The authority given to Christ by the Church existed for decades before the NT was written, and centuries before it was canonized. The authority of the Church is bolstered by Scripture, not troubled.

1 Tim 3:15
5 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Be that as it may, whether “official” or not, the Corinthians’ are clearly out of step with the boundaries scripture imposes.

And out of step with the Apostolic instruction they received. Both sources of God’s revelation are equally normative and authoritative. They are not to be separated from one another.

 

[paul_c]

Eric said:

This is a false dichotomy that you would do well do abandon. Paul is dealing with both behavior (pride, divisions, boasting) and doctrine (the Wisdom of God, vicarious atonement (e.g., “was Paul crucified for you?”), baptism (e.g., Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel”), the theology of the cross, etc. All of these issues are integral to the entire argument up to (and even beyond) 1 Corinthians 4:6.

You’re making a distinction here that Paul does not. When we “boast in men” (1 Cor. 3:21), we are putting people in a place that only Christ rightly has. This is why Paul asks, “Was Paul crucified for you?” When Paul says in 4:6, “I have applied [literally, “reformatted”] these things to myself and Apollos on your behalf,” I believe this is what Paul means. By putting himself in the place of Christ on the cross, he is dramatizing their error. But what took place on the Christ? Paul says he died, “ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν” (“on your behalf”). That is, he died in our place (substitutionary atonement). If the issue were a simple matter of pride, why use this kind of rhetoric? Is Paul overreacting here? Or does he see where this pride will lead to (or already has lead to?) To say, “I am of Paul” is no different than saying, “Paul died for me,” as far as Paul is concerned. How are you not seeing this?

The “leap in logic” that you see here didn’t begin with me. It began with Paul when he asked two rhetorical questions: “Was Paul crucified for you?” “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” Tone is a very subjective thing to detect in scripture. I could hear Paul using a bit of sarcasm here, or alternatively, a bit of humor to make his point. Whatever the tone may have been, the words are clear. Paul took the claims to be “of Paul” or “of Apollos” or “of Peter,” as indicative of an attitude or belief that was tantamount to putting any one of the aforementioned apostles into a place that only Christ rightfully holds. Yes—there is pride going on here. No one denies that. But look what it lead to or was leading to. That’s the point of Paul’s rhetoric here.

Two Comments:

1. Paul is clearly speaking out against factionalism. The Corinthians were splitting the church much as he Reformers did 1500 years later (Lutherans, Calvinists,etc). Paul was simply setting them straight
2. you started out by claiming that this passage meant that Paul was supporting sola scriptura. But it must be obvious to you by now that Paul himself went far beyond what was written in the Old Testament in his preaching and in his epistles.

 

[guanophore]

Er…, no. The problem is much deeper than a failure to “appreciate” their place in the church. The problem is that they are causing divisions in the body of Christ by putting mere men in the place of Christ. That’s the implication of Paul’s rhetorical questions: Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? That’s the rationale behind the words, “Do not boast in men” (1 Cor. 3:21). The rhetorical questions and command against boasting cannot arise in the first place unless the Corinthians were doing, or were in danger of doing, precisely what Paul admonishes them not to do.

The two are the same thing, Miguel. I think you can’t see that what you have described here is a failure to appreciate their place in the Church because you are suffering from a deficient understanding of the nature of “church”. It is about relating rightly to others in the Body of Christ, to Christ as the head, and to their leaders according to the Apostolic instruction.

For in saying, “I follow Paul,” Paul draws out the implication that they are not following Christ.

I don’t think so, Miguel. I agree that he is speaking against factions, but he does not imply what you claim.

1 Cor 11:1
11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

2 Thess 3:7
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us…
9 It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.

2 Tim 1:13-14
3 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

1 Cor 4:17-18
17 Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

The Sacred Tradition is preserved in the faithful by their way of life. One can follow this Sacred Tradition and be confident that one’s conduct will emulate those who follow Christ.

Hence Paul’s rhetorical question, “Was Paul crucified for you?” I submit that Paul’s question here is precisely the “drastic” conclusion that you think is unwarranted—namely that the mere fact of being overly identified with one of the apostles is tantamount to idolatry.

That might be a bit extreme, Miguel, but I do agree that the goal in imitating and following the Apostles is to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, and they seem to have lost that point.

Clearly, Paul makes repeated references to the need to imitate the lives of the teachers.

Heb 13:7-8

7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

This is how Sacred Tradition is preserved.

 

[Philthy]

… The problem is that they are causing divisions in the body of Christ by putting mere men in the place of Christ. That’s the implication of Paul’s rhetorical questions: Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? That’s the rationale behind the words, “Do not boast in men” (1 Cor. 3:21).
… For in saying, “I follow Paul,” Paul draws out the implication that they are not following Christ.
… I submit that Paul’s question here is precisely the “drastic” conclusion that you think is unwarranted—namely that the mere fact of being overly identified with one of the apostles is tantamount to idolatry. And yes—this has implications for salvation. If not, then explain Paul’s rhetorical questions? Why would he ask, “Was Paul crucified for you?” if nothing doctrinal is at stake?

I think you are grossly overstating the problem that existed. I think it was as simple as this: some Corinthian Christians had begun to associate with socially or culturally similar Corinthians (while dissociating with other Christians). They were effectively behaving in a discriminatory manner by seeking to surround themselves with people they more easily related to, forgetting that their relationship in Christ is what should be their first consideration. It was clearly wrong for them to have done it , but it is not idolatry. They all worshiped Christ and I think Paul is merely pointing out that creating these divisions based upon slave or free, rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, or whatever, simply is not in keeping with the Christian Way. His reference to “Was Paul crucified for you?” could very easily be a reminder that what truly unites them all, and that which is most important, is Christ - not the other petty differences. His asking does not at all suggest that they considered Paul or Cephas to be God. Again, this does not add up to idolatry, and furthermore Paul doesnt even suggest that their salvation is in play. As support of my position - and especially regarding the venial nature of their actions, we need look no further than Ch 6 of the very same letter. There we can see how Paul addresses issues of a more serious nature that jeopardize one’s inheritance in the kingdom of God. He withholds no punches in 1 Cor 6:1-9:
“How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones?..it is…a failure on your part that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated? Instead, you inflict injustice and cheat, and this to brothers. Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thievesnor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
When someone’s inheritance in the kingdom of God is at stake, Paul isn’t satisfied with rhetoric and implications: he speaks definitively. Please note how he describes the action they were involved in(“you inflict injustice”) and then asks, flabergasted, “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God?” He then reiterates the same message - expanded to include other sins - with the clear warning “Do not be deceived…will (not) inherit the kingdom of God” He uses almost the exact language again in (Eph 5 and Gal 5). I submit to you that while your conclusion about the issues in Ch 3 rising to the level of idolatry is possible it is not a necessary conclusion, and furthermore that given the clarity and directness of his handling of other, definitively mortal sins later in the very same letter, that your conclusion is improbable and, as you say, implausible. That obviates the intended significance you attempted to convey regarding this section of Scripture and it’s apparent support of Sola Scriptura.

Blessings!

 

[ibetrippin07]

feel a bit odd jumping into a 40 some page debate so please forgive me if i reiterate anything but i guess to start where everyone seems to have left off.
guan you say “It is about relating rightly to others in the Body of Christ, to Christ as the head, and to their leaders according to the Apostolic instruction.”
i agree with the first half but where do you find grounds of evidence for the 2nd half of this statement?

1 Cor 11:1, why do you suppose this scripture is given and then verse 3: but i want you to know that the head of every man is christ. further down in this chapter we are given rules from paul about prophesying and praying, so what is your strongest evidence that 11:1 does not explain the imitation setting for chapter 11 as a whole and is to be understood on its own separate from the rest of the verses laid out shortly after?

Im not sure why you picked 2 Thess 3:7/9 and why you need omit the basis for both verses in 3:8…“nor did we eat anyones bread free of charge but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you” he provided an example. he had the authority just as you would have working for the church to receive some sort of payment in food or what not but instead he chose not to. please provide evidence that this interpretation is wrong.

I can only agree with 2 tim, only provides more evidence that Jesus is speaking through paul.

interesting pick of heb 13:7/8. if im an army general will i not look at historys past generals and their strategy? basically paul is breaking it down to do what works best!
my fav part here though is heb 13:8/9: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried about with VARIOUS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES. for it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them. "
grace is all you need
a few more imitation scriptures:
Matthew 5:16 - "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven

1 Peter 2:12 - “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.”

2 corth 5:20 “now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us:”
i certainly hope its not necessary for me or anyone else here to make the point that Christ wants us to imitate him and this is most pleasing to him above all. if need be though i will provide those scriptures as well.
as for the title of this topic:
the denial of sola sciptura always has perplexed me, before even going into any scriptures think about the following: Is the bible really enough for you? if not, what does the bible lack that you have trouble with your faith in? and if so where do you get the knowledge to fulfill this lacking. what makes this knowledge more authoritative than the occult books such as crowleys book of lies or book of the law? <these by the way are very horrid books that should only be read purely for an understanding of the other side.
Is Christs word not enough in this day and age or something? if you are to be christian catholic w/e the denomination thereof would it not make the most sense to acquire as original and pure as possible Christs original words and study that?
the bible is not one book but a compilation of books believed to have been God breathed. if the text you draw a teaching from is not God breathed what makes you think God approves of it?
as for scriptures here are some, note that anyone refuting sola scriptura is burdened with finding a different interpretation supported with evidence that these do not indicate sola scriptura
1 Cor 4:6 Now these things brethren I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other

if scripture is not enough then why did luke write this?
1:3-4 It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Jesus defeated Satan with the famous words “it is written” not “it is tradition”.

2 Tim 3:14-17: But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[ibetrippin07]

cont due to length:

In Luke 10:25-37 a man asks Jesus how to get eternal life, Jesus respons to him "what is written in the law? what is your reading of it? so this man answers with a scripture, Jesus respons “you have answered rightly; do this and you will live”. so what more tradition does this man need to know? according to Jesus none.

Acts 17:11 “these were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” not shortly after this scripture we find paul preaching the word of God, not some stupid tradition secretly handed to him unwritten for whatever reason, seriously if there was a tradition God had seen so important for man to keep why is it not written about? communion was, baptism was and the instructions are right there in the book itself. why would you consult anyone else?

Jesus (our teacher and the one we draw everything from) only used scripture to back him up, where did he say “as tradition has it, you know this!” instead he pull scriptures for his points. where did Jesus talk kindly of traditions? all i could find was this:
Mat 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’
mark 7:7-13
7 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ 8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition." 9 Then he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother’; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God )— 12 then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”

unfortunately i have to go atm, but i will expand on this most likely tomorrow or the next day.
again please i know it is somewhat of a burden but take every scripture i have referenced and show how it is not in support of sola scriptura, otherwise do not post.
God bless!!

 

[Ignatius]

have to go atm,

Here are but a few of the problems with Sola Scriptura.

• Jesus did not hand the New Testament to his followers and say “read and heed” He never wrote a line of scripture, and with the exception of Revelation, never commanded anyone else to do so either.
• When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, He did not drop the New Testaments in their laps, but gave them the authority to preach and teach.
• When the early church leaders had a debate about Gentiles entering the Church (Acts 11), they could not use the scriptures to decide the issue as the Old Testament didn’t apply and the New Testament didn’t exist. Instead, they met and discussed the issue, with the Church leaders making a statement as to what should be done.
• People were converting to Christianity through oral word for many, many years before any of the New Testament was given.
• When the New Testament began to be written, it was addressed to people who had already been taught the faith through oral preaching, and (mainly in the case of the various epistles) its purpose was to clarify issues or correct problems, not be an exhaustive primer of the faith. Also, keep in mind that the books were written to a specific church or individual, and as a consequence, an epistle that might be widely read in one region might be completely unknown to another.
• The New Testament as we know it was not formalized until the end of the 4th century AD. It was the church that created the Bible, not the other way around.
• Many people in ancient times were illiterate, so the only way for them to hear the Gospel was to go to church and hear it preached. BTW, while I’m at it, I’d like to explode the Protestant myth that “the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin so ordinary people couldn’t read it.” As I said, the ordinary people were largely illiterate to begin with. Secondly, schools of that time (and for centuries thereafter) taught Latin as part of their curriculum, so anyone who could read could read Latin. Also, numerous vernacular translations of the Bible were in existence long before Luther & Co. came along.
• Furthermore, until the advent of the printing press, the necessity of writing everything by hand and the expense of writing materials (like parchment) made books too expensive for the average citizen. The concept of modern organizations (like for instance the Gideon’s) passing out pocket New Testaments by the truckload would have been fantastic to ancient Christians.
• We re told that it is the Church which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). St Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15). How do we know for sure all what Paul taught by word of mouth? For that matter, how do know that the Pauline epistles included in the New Testament are the ONLY ones he wrote? It is the Catholic Church which preserved these writings for 16 centuries
• The Apostle John tells us twice in his Gospel (20:30, 21:25) that not all the things that Jesus said and did were written down. Were those words and deeds any less important because they weren’t? Keep in mind this was primarily an *oral *culture.
• In Acts 8, when Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch if he understands the passage in Isaiah he is reading, the Ethiopian responds, “How can, I, unless someone guides me?” (vv 27-31). In other words, whose interpretation do you trust? The practice of using Scripture Alone has shattered Christianity into thousands of different denominations, all of whom claim to follow the Bible, all who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, but all giving different interpretations! Finally, nowhere in the Bible is it written “The Bible alone, shalt thou take as thy sole rule of faith.” Sola Scriptura is unscriptural!

Conclusion: St Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:20 that “no prophesy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” St Peter also says in the same epistle (3:16) that “there are some things in them (St Paul’s epistles) hard to understand, which the unlearned and ignorant and unstable twist to their own instruction, as they do the other scriptures.” The tragedies of Jonestown and Waco, Texas provide stark testimonies to the dangers of private interpretation. The writers of the New Testament warn their readers constantly to avoid false teachers, but how is one to determine what is is false and what is true unless there is a set standard to apply to. It cannot be Scripture Alone since Protestants who hold to it cannot agree on what the Bible teaches.

Please take each point and the conclusions made in this post and present a point-by-point reply. When you get done with that, I have several more pages of points to post that need to be answered on this subject. Since you have chosen to post on this Catholic forum, I expect that you’ll will take the time to answer these issues on the false, man made Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

feel a bit odd jumping into a 40 some page debate so please forgive me if i reiterate anything but i guess to start where everyone seems to have left off.

You are welcome whenever you deem it is time to jump.

guan you say “It is about relating rightly to others in the Body of Christ, to Christ as the head, and to their leaders according to the Apostolic instruction.”
i agree with the first half but where do you find grounds of evidence for the 2nd half of this statement?

Paul is, as Miguel has rightly noted, addressing their inappropriate behavior of being factious. They were identified with their leaders, but not in the proper manner (see post 994 for examples).

1 Cor 11:1
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.does not mean to be puffed up because you were baptized or taught by any one person.

1 Cor 11:1, why do you suppose this scripture is given and then verse 3: but i want you to know that the head of every man is christ. further down in this chapter we are given rules from paul about prophesying and praying, so what is your strongest evidence that 11:1 does not explain the imitation setting for chapter 11 as a whole and is to be understood on its own separate from the rest of the verses laid out shortly after?

I don’t claim otherwise. In fact this is the Apostolic instruction they were not following.

Im not sure why you picked 2 Thess 3:7/9 and why you need omit the basis for both verses in 3:8…“nor did we eat anyones bread free of charge but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you” he provided an example. he had the authority just as you would have working for the church to receive some sort of payment in food or what not but instead he chose not to. please provide evidence that this interpretation is wrong.

I don’t believe I claimed any such thing. Imitating the Apostles’ way of life and faith is important for many reasons, this being one of them.

interesting pick of heb 13:7/8. if im an army general will i not look at historys past generals and their strategy? basically paul is breaking it down to do what works best!
my fav part here though is heb 13:8/9: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried about with VARIOUS AND STRANGE DOCTRINES. for it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them. "
grace is all you need

If grace is all we need, why did He appoint pastors and teachers? Seems like that would have been a waste of His time, no?

a few more imitation scriptures:
…i certainly hope its not necessary for me or anyone else here to make the point that Christ wants us to imitate him and this is most pleasing to him above all. if need be though i will provide those scriptures as well.

The context, though is Paul using himself and Apollos as examples. Paul encourages the disciples to imitate him, as he imitates Christ. The point he is making, though is that people are not to get puffed up and factious about it.

as for the title of this topic:
the denial of sola sciptura always has perplexed me, before even going into any scriptures think about the following: Is the bible really enough for you?

No.

if not, what does the bible lack that you have trouble with your faith in?

Holy Scripture does not contain the sacraments, especially the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I don’t have any trouble with my faith.

and if so where do you get the knowledge to fulfill this lacking. what makes this knowledge more authoritative than the occult books such as crowleys book of lies or book of the law? <these by the way are very horrid books that should only be read purely for an understanding of the other side.

Jesus is the source of all wisdom. He is not confined to the Bible.

Is Christs word not enough in this day and age or something?

Christ’s Word is certainly enough, but it is not confined to the Scripture.

if you are to be christian catholic w/e the denomination thereof would it not make the most sense to acquire as original and pure as possible Christs original words and study that?

Yes.

But I don’t have to look far, because the New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. Catholics copied it, preserved it, protected it, promulgated it and canonized it.

the bible is not one book but a compilation of books believed to have been God breathed. if the text you draw a teaching from is not God breathed what makes you think God approves of it?

The fact that Scripture is inspired and inerrant does not mean that God disapproves of all other writings. I find the writings of the early fathers very enriching.

Is there some reason you think God disapproves of the ante-Nicean fathers?

 

[guanophore]

as for scriptures here are some, note that anyone refuting sola scriptura is burdened with finding a different interpretation supported with evidence that these do not indicate sola scriptura
1 Cor 4:6 Now these things brethren I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other

This is not a problem for Catholics, ibe, since we know that the majority of the NT was not yet written when Paul made this statement. The CC added all 27 books of the NT to the Bible. If we were literally “not to go beyond what is written” then nothing but this letter would be in our NT.

if scripture is not enough then why did luke write this?
1:3-4 It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

A better question would be, if scripture were enough, why did Jesus establish a Church?

Luke makes reference to what Theophilus has been instructed. This is the teaching that was handed down from the Apostles. When the Scriptures are read apart from this, all kinds or errors result.

Jesus defeated Satan with the famous words “it is written” not “it is tradition”.

Where did you think the writings came from, ibe? How was history preserved from Adam and Eve to Moses?

Every time Jesus uses the phrase “but I say to you” He is going “beyond what is written”.

Matt 5:21-23

21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Here, He speaks of the Sacred Tradition “it was said to men of old”.

then He goes beyond the commandment that was written (thou shalt not kill) and brings a finer point to it. Jesus is not bound by what is written.

2 Tim 3:14-17: But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

This is a reference to Sacred Tradition. It is the Word of God passed from one generation to the next by learning the Holy way of life.

and that from childhood you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture is profitable. It is not the only thing that is profitable.

 

[guanophore]

In Luke 10:25-37 a man asks Jesus how to get eternal life, Jesus respons to him "what is written in the law? what is your reading of it? so this man answers with a scripture, Jesus respons “you have answered rightly; do this and you will live”. so what more tradition does this man need to know? according to Jesus none.

Obviously, the lawyer was lacking something. He felt a need to put Jesus to the test. What was that about? Why did he feel the need to justify himself? Any chance He knew what it said, but his heart was bearing witness to him that he was missing something?

Jesus is clear that the Scriptures are insufficient:
John 5:39-41
39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Eternal life is in Him. We must come to HIm that we may have life. The Scriptures are sufficient to lead us to Him, because they bear witness to Him.

Acts 17:11 “these were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” not shortly after this scripture we find paul preaching the word of God, not some stupid tradition secretly handed to him unwritten for whatever reason, seriously if there was a tradition God had seen so important for man to keep why is it not written about?

How is it that you have become hostile so soon ibe? It might be a good time for you to review the forum rules, if you wish to post here. You don’t have to agree with our faith, but if you wish to post here, you are required to respect our beliefs, which means that you don’t call them “stupid”.

What made the Bereans more noble? …“that they received the word with all readiness”. They received the Apostolic instruction with willing and open hearts. This is what you do not seem willing to do. You wish to believe that what was given to the Church by the apostles is “stupid secret traditions”. Not sure why you want to believe this, but I can assure you that what Paul preached to the Bereans was Sacred Tradition. It was neither stupid, nor secret.

It is important for men to keep, and that is one of the reasons we receive the Apsotolic Command to keep them.

2 Thess 2:15
5 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

I am sorry you did not receive these Sacred Traditions, but it is not your fault. You come from a faith tradition that has been separated from the Apsotolic faith for 500+ years. There is no way you could even know how much you have lost.

2 Tim 1:13-14
13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

The Sacred Tradition is the “pattern of sound words” that comes from the Apostles. This Sacred Truth is entrusted to the faithful, and is infallibly guarded by the Holy Spirit.

As you can see, this is no secret. It is written there for all to see.

communion was, baptism was and the instructions are right there in the book itself. why would you consult anyone else?

Do you think the Apostles would command us to keep, guard, and preserve something “stupid”?

 

[Algo1]

Irenaeus never found a contradiction between what was passed down to Him through Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures.

Exactly, because what he considered to be “passed down” as doctrine were the cardinal rules of the creed found in scripture. See previous post.
The “paradosis” that you are describing is more like that of the Gnostics that Irenaeus was refuting.

No, Algo. The Catholic doctrines were given to her by Christ, through the Apostles. They were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT is a reflection of the faith of the Church, not the Source. Jesus is the Source.

If “The NT is a reflection of the faith of the Church, not the Source,” then why did Augustine say…

Augustine (354-430): As to Enoch and Elias and Moses, our belief is determined not by Faustus’ suppositions, but by the declarations of Scripture, resting as they do on foundations of the strongest and surest evidence. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XXVI, §3.

Augustine (354-430): First, however, we must demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, whether the faith be so. NPNF1: Vol. III, On The Trinity, Book 1, Chapter 2, §4.

This is the major difference between Apostolic faiths and the modern “bible churches”. Modern evangelicals attempt to “derive from Scripture” the truth, rather that receiving it through the paradosis.

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386): Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. **For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. ** For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. NPNF2: Vol. VII, Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV:17.

Augustine (354-430): Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church. For trans., See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 109-110.
Latin text: Quicumque de ipso capite, ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput IV, §7, PL 43:395-396.

**Augustine (354-430): ** We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Ecclesia, quam sicut ipsum caput in Scripturis sanctis canonicis debemus agnoscere, non in variis hominum rumoribus, et opinionibus, et factis, et dictis, et visis inquirere. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §49, PL 43:429.

The Truths are present in scripture because they reflect the kerygma.

Irenaeus seems to identify the transmission of truth with episcopal succession. Inasmuch as the Apostles did not institute other Apostles but bishops, however, the episcopal witness is a derived witness, and its function is to preserve the integrity and totality of the original apostolic witness. To this end the Canon was formed…the writings of the Apostles which were in the process of being received—not produced by the Church—were understood to contain the original kerygma in toto. Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), p. 367.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the Apostolic Tradition was transmitted to the Church. In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain ORAL in nature. It was inscripturated. Thus the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture.
continued:

Yes, but he also says that it was committed through the Apostolic Succession. It was the bishops that were entrusted with the One Faith, and were charged to instruct the faithful with all authority. Their instruction includes the use of Scripture, which is profitable in equipping the saints.

The line taken by Irenaeus in defending orthodoxy against his heretical Gnostic opponents gives an instructive illustration both of his argument from apostolicity and of his practical dependence on the Bible. **The apostles, he contends, first preached the Gospel, then by God’s will traditioned it in the Scriptures. ** Matthew, Peter, Paul, and John are cited as authorities behind the four Gospels (haer. lib. 3. cap. I). The heretics, however, deny the authority of the Scriptures, call them ambiguous, and say that the truth cannot be discovered from them by anybody who is ignorant of the tradition, which was not, according to themselves, delivered in writing, but orally. When, however, they are confronted with ‘that tradition which comes from the apostles and is preserved in the churches through the succession of the priests’—the episcopate is often designated the priesthood by the earlier ecclesiastical writers—they start objecting to tradition and say that they themselves know better than either bishop or apostle. ‘It comes to this,’ says Irenaeus: ‘they won’t agree either with the Scriptures or with the tradition’ (cap. 2). Yet, he continues, any honest investigator can observe in every church the tradition of the apostles; and the orthodox were ‘in a position to enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles’, together with their successors, and to prove that their teaching bore no resemblance to that of the heretics…The heretics are pure innovators. Now comes the climax. Since the tradition derived from the apostles is an established and lasting fact, ‘let us revert to that proof which comes from the Scriptures, furnished by those apostles who also wrote the Gospel’ (cap. 5.1). And he proceeds to vindicate the faith out of the Bible for the rest of the book. If it is the duty of the Church to teach, it is the privilege of the Bible to prove. G.L. Prestige, Fathers and Heretics (SPCK: London, 1958), p. 16.

The way of salvation and the tradition are in practice synonymous. But Irenaeus attached supreme importance to what was written with paper and ink. The apostolic tradition is for him the proper and natural interpretation of Scripture: the faith that he summarizes and expounds is what Scripture teaches. He is convinced of the perspicuity of Scripture; any honest student of Scripture must agree that this is its meaning. F.F. Bruce, Tradition Old and New (Paternoster: Devon, 1970), p. 116.

What the apostles had preached viva voce (orally), they had ‘handed down to us in the Scriptures as the pillar and bulwark of our faith.’ Not to assent to the content of these scriptures was to hold in contempt those who had communion with Christ the Lord…So it was that the terms apostolic, catholic, traditional, and orthodox became synonymous terms.** The apostolic dogmas was a standard term for that which was believed, taught and confessed by the orthodox catholic church on the basis of the word of God.** Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, (Chicago:University of Chicago, 1974), Vol. I, pp. 114, 120.

guan, maybe you can provide us with the interpretations of Scripture other than what Irenaeus describes as “this faith” or “the canon of truth” which was essentially what was contained in the creed. Or what was the contents of this “One Faith”.
It’s true that Irenaeus did lay the ground work for the Vincentian Canon, more on this later.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus (our teacher and the one we draw everything from) only used scripture to back him up, where did he say “as tradition has it, you know this!” instead he pull scriptures for his points. where did Jesus talk kindly of traditions?

I responded to this above. Every place where he says “but I say to you” is a reference to the Sacred Tradition.

Jesus taught in parables that are not found anywhere in the OT. This was His way of preserving the Sacred Traditions.

all i could find was this:
Mat 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

It is hard to see certain things when one is wearing blinders, is it not? Those doggone anti-catholic eye equipments really make a lot of scripture invisible.

mark 7:7-13
7 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ 8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition."

Seriously, ibe. You really need to think about why on earth the Apostles would command the faithful to keep and preserve “human” traditions. Especially when Jesus had these things to say. If the Traditions are from God, and not humans, then they are worth preserving. Otherwise, why command it?

unfortunately i have to go atm, but i will expand on this most likely tomorrow or the next day.

I look forward.

again please i know it is somewhat of a burden but take every scripture i have referenced and show how it is not in support of sola scriptura, otherwise do not post.
God bless!!

Dear one, I commend your polemics. I learned these talking points when I was in college from Campus Crusade. They are good questions, even if misplaced. Your premise assumes that CAtholics do not consider scripture normative, authoritative, and essential to the Christian life. None of these things are true.

You have a tool on your account that allows you to “ignore” any posts you do not wish to see, but you do not have the authority to dictate when others can post, or not.

And finally, I have no desire to support Sola Scriptura. If you wish to espouse it, that is your affair, but I am not required to intrepret any of the Scriptures you posted in support of that view.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly, because what he considered to be “passed down” as doctrine were the cardinal rules of the creed found in scripture. See previous post.

Yes, but he understood the Scriptures according to the Sacred Tradition. People who separated the Scriptures from that Tradition (such as the Gnostics) came up with all kinds of wild ideas that represented a significant departure from what the Apsotles believed and taught. We see the same thing today, with modern groups that interpret the Scripture apart from what the Church defined (creeds) them to mean. We have JW’s who read the same bible, yet don’t believe in the Trinity, and don’t believe Jesus is God. We have SDA’s who believe that all faith communities that don’t observe the Sabbath are apostates, etc.

The “paradosis” that you are describing is more like that of the Gnostics that Irenaeus was refuting.

No, Algo. If you read Ireneaus, it becomes clear that he criticizes the Gnostics for denying both the Holy Scriptures, and the Sacred Tradition. He is also clear that the two need to be kept together. It is DEPARTING from the paradosis that causes problems for the Gnostics.

Since you don’t seem familiar with the Christian use of this term, here are some scripture references to it.

Here is one example:

Lk 1:1-2

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down (paredosan) to us.

What has been handed down (paredosan) is 100% compatible with what was written down.

If  "The NT is a reflection of the faith of the Church, not the Source," then why did Augustine say...

Augustine is Catholic, Algo. He understood the Scriptures in the light of the paradosis He received. The Scriptures accurately reflect and lay a foundation of the faith because they are inspired by God. For some reason you seem to think that, because Catholics do not assign a role to Scripture it was never meant to have, that we do not value it at all.

Here are some more quotes from Saint Auggie:

*f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 345)

And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants. (On Baptism, 4, 24, 31; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 61)

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, deed, because they are but men, . . . - not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4:5; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 130)

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131)

Church (Authority)?

God has placed this authority first of all in his Church. (Explanations of the Psalms, Tract 103:8, PL 37:520-521; in Congar, 392)

It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true. (Sermon 117, 6)

To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you; thus, since Holy Scripture cannot be mistaken, anyone fearing to be misled by the obscurity of this question has only to consult on this same subject this very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity. (Against Cresconius I:33; in Eno, 134)

continued:

Oh, yes…by all means!*

 

[guanophore]

guan, maybe you can provide us with the interpretations of Scripture other than what Irenaeus describes as “this faith” or “the canon of truth” which was essentially what was contained in the creed. Or what was the contents of this “One Faith”.
It’s true that Irenaeus did lay the ground work for the Vincentian Canon, more on this later.

Since I do not see any dichotomy between what Ireneaus describes and the Sacred Tradition, then I don’t think I can help you. You seem to be intent on setting up a false dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition.

The Sacred Tradition is not “other than”. It is alongside the Scripture. It is the lens through which we properly understand what is written.

 

[EricFilmer]

the denial of sola sciptura always has perplexed me, before even going into any scriptures think about the following: Is the bible really enough for you? if not, what does the bible lack that you have trouble with your faith in?

But is the Bible enough for even the adherents of Sola Scriptura? I know they will all say that it is, but is it truly enough in practice?

For example, consider a situation where a roomful of adherents of Sola Scriptura from different Protestant backgrounds are asked about such topics as the necessity of baptism, what is and is not a sacrament, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, women pastors, homosexual marriages, divorce, abortion, and sex before marriage. Am I going to get the same answer? No. Rather, what this will inevitably lead to is a big debate as to what the Bible does and does not say. Moreover, at the end of this debate there will not be a consensus, which is why there are so many divisions within Protestantism. Each will probably go off considering his interpretation to be the correct one, but obviously not everyone’s interpretation can be correct considering the contradictions. For example, in the eyes of God, Confirmation is either a sacrament or it is not, women may be pastors or they may not, etc.

Consider a series of videos from the John Ankerberg Show starting with this link (YouTube will give you the links for the other parts). The topic being discussed is, “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?”, which is a very important and essential subject to say the least! And everyone in this discussion is an adherent of Sola Scriptura. But this is not a lecture, but rather a debate.

On one side are representatives of the Church of Christ who state that a penitent sinner must receive baptism for the remission of sins.

On the other side are those who state that remission of sins comes by faith before baptism and apart from it.

Both sides read the same Bible concerning this extremely essential topic and came to not only different conclusions, but opposing conclusions! And the televised debate does not result in an agreement between these parties as to whether or not Baptism is necessary for salvation. I think it is true to say that in the eyes of God baptism is either necessary or it is not, but obviously the Bible was not enough for the people in this debate, because no one could prove his position was the correct one and that the other position was the incorrect one.

And let me end by asking you this question: Assuming you have the time to listen to this lengthy debate from the John Ankerberg Show, is the Bible enough for you to clearly demonstrate to me who is right in this debate and who is wrong?