Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

But that would be a tedious waste of time since you, presumably, believe in the Trinity.

But it is the very reason that we both believe in the Trinity that I am using this doctrine in Challenge #4!!!

You have given your definition of what Sola Scriptura is and stated that it is to be used to determine doctrine. Moreover, you have stated that the Bible clearly teaches this doctrine. We are debating the validity of the principle of Sola Scriptura, so the best way to prove or disprove the principle is to use specific examples to see whether or not it “gets the job done.”

In order for this examination to not be a “tedious waste of time”, Challenge #4 has to take the following things into consideration:

1. For the specific doctrine to be examined within the challenge, I cannot select a doctrine that you don’t believe in. For example, as far as you are concerned, what would be the point or relevance of me saying, “Sola Scriptura is not valid because the Bible does not have the material or formal sufficiency for determining the fullness of Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception”? You would simply say, “This doesn’t prove that Sola Scriptura is invalid, only that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is.” So how far does this get us in testing the validity of Sola Scriptura? It gets us nowhere.
2. I cannot select a doctrine that we both agree is clearly taught in Scripture. After all, I do believe that some doctrines can be demonstrated from an entirely biblical standpoint. For example, this can be done with the Doctrine of the Incarnation. But this would be a waste of time in the debate at hand because simply saying that the Bible alone is sufficient for the determination of some doctrines is not the same thing as saying that it is sufficient for all doctrines.
3. Hence, I have to select a specific doctrine that we both agree is valid, but which I think the Bible alone is neither materially nor formally sufficient for its determination. For this task I have chosen the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

And the ramifications of this challenge are extremely profound, which is exactly why I think you are suddenly showing reluctance in continuing this. After all, if you can’t show that the Bible has the material and formal sufficiency for the determination of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity then that means, objectively speaking, one of the following conclusions must be made:

a) The principle of Sola Scriptura is invalid.
b) The principle of Sola Scriptura may be valid, but your definition of it is incorrect (i.e., “back to the ol’ drawing board”).
c) The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is invalid.

By the way, if you really think the Trinity is unclear in scripture, then why do you believe it (if you do)?

In other words, why does someone like me who does not believe in Sola Scriptura believe in a doctrine which is unclearly taught in Scripture? Is that what you’re actually asking me? Do I really need to answer this? Actually, I have already answered this a number of times so far, but here it is again: For a Catholic, just because the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not clearly taught in Scripture does not mean that it is not clearly taught, period. It is clearly taught within the totality of God’s revelation, which is not confined to the Bible alone.

And just to be clear, I absolutely believe in the validity of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and everything it teaches.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

What information has “Tradition” or the “Magisterium” given you that you (and they) did not derive from scripture?

I’ll give you two:

1) According to the Nicene Creed, Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father” and “begotten, not made.” I know that Scripture says that Jesus is begotten, but show me where in the Bible it says that this is an eternal begetting with the kind of clarity that will allow us to say that Jesus is “begotten, not made.”

The heretics of the ancient Church, as well as certain modern groups (which claim to be Christian and believe in the Bible) say that “begotten” means “made”, and therefore the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is unbiblical.
I’ve already mentioned the Oneness Pentecostals’ denial of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and consider also what the following groups officially teach on the subject of whether or not the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is biblical:
The Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Mormons
Christian Science (i.e., Church of Christ Scientists)

2) The Nicene Creed describes the divinity of Jesus as “one in being with the Father.” When the Nicene Creed was written in Greek, one of the biggest debates was which word to use to say “one in being”. Would the Creed say, homoousion, meaning “of one and the same substance”, or rather homoiousios, meaning that the Father and Son shared "similar substance.”

The Creed ended up using homoousion and therefore, in the face of various heresies, the Church clarified the eternal divinity of Christ and his relationship with the Father. For example, he was not a created being who was imbued with a degree of divine power, as a number of heretics purported.

In light of this, I say that the Bible alone is not sufficient to clearly teach the distinction between homoousios and homoiousios that the Nicene Creed makes.

What advantage, other than tie-breaking-authority, do they give you? And again, on what basis do you countenance their authority in the first place?

It gives me the advantage of objectively knowing that interpretations of Scripture which reject the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit are heretical.

(Scripture? Are you sure you’re reading these texts the right way? Do such texts “clearly” demonstrate the infallibility of the Roman magisterium? And who decides that such texts are “clear” in the first place? You? Rome? But doesn’t that beg the question?)

You keep wanting to steer the discussion to this. I will simply repeat what I stated back in Post #609:
“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 Magisterium.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

What was the litmus test you used to determine that the Roman magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals and, on her authority, you believe the Trinity is to be believed even though Arius and the Modalists may have been equally justified in their reading of the text? Isn’t the litmus test your own personal reading of scripture and church history? But how is it okay for you to engage in such “private interpretation,” and not allow others the same liberty?

Once again, the topic of this thread is “Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You betcha!” So what is being examined is Sola Scriptura and the claim that it is the final authority for the determination of Scripture. Moreover, it is the perceived violation of Scriptural authority which compels many adherents of Sola Scriptura to come to CAF and denounce many Catholic doctrines. Therefore, I am examining the authority of Scripture and whether or not this concept has been exaggerated by adherents of Sola Scriptura.

The authority of the Magisterium is worth mentioning in the context of the differences between how Protestants and Catholics determine doctrine, but a full defense of Magisterial authority is off-topic and deserves a thread discussion all of its own.

But to answer your question, no. I don’t expect you to take my word for it. I expect you to take God’s word for it.

I do take God’s word for it, and God’s word refers to the totality of his revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, along with the official teachings of the Magisterium concerning the same.

Read the text. If you really believe that Arius had just as good a case as Athanasius, then by all means start a thread and demonstrate the equal plausibility of Arianism and perhaps those interested in that topic will join you there.

So you admit that your personal, fallible, interpretation of Scripture is not the litmus test of truth. But now you imply that your interpretation is the “plausible” one and the standard to which the plausibility of other interpretations is determined. So in other words, even though you say that your personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture is not the litmus test of truth, you act as if it is.

Moreover, consider the full ramifications of the things you said in this thread:

1. You admit that your interpretation of Scripture is one possible interpretation among many.
2. You admit that your interpretation of Scripture is fallible.
3. And yet even though people have interpreted Scripture differently from you, you think this resulted because they didn’t properly “read the text.”
4. This suggests that people who truly “read the text” will agree with your personal interpretation of Scripture. But they wouldn’t be simply “taking your word for it” because they would see that it is actually “God’s word.”
5. Putting all this together, even though you say that your interpretation of Scripture is fallible, you act as if it is infallible. What else am I to make of someone who says that if they take the time to study the text of Scripture they discover that your interpretation happens to be the one that matches God’s own?

As for me, however, I want to go back to the topic of sola scriptura. I don’t think the Trinity Gambit is working for you here, Eric, if for no other reason than all parties here presumably agree that it is the best reading of scripture.

Then, once again, I say, PROVE it!

Cite the book, chapter and verses of the Bible that clearly teach the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Cite the passages that clearly teach that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
Cite the passages that clearly teach that the divine nature of the Son is the same as the Father, as opposed to being similar.
Cite the passages that clearly teach that in the realm of “divine mathematics” 1+1+1=1.
Cite the passages that clearly teach that the Holy Spirit is a specific person, and that he is fully distinct from the Father and the Son to the extent that I can bow down and worship him fully distinct from the Father and the Son.

And let me remind you once again that you are the one who said:
“And it (the Bible) does clearly teach the Trinity.”
“If I wanted to defend the Trinity on the basis of scripture I could.”

And as for your statement, “I don’t think the Trinity Gambit is working for you here, Eric, if for no other reason than all parties here presumably agree that it is the best reading of scripture,” I ask why do you presume this? As a Catholic I would say that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the “best” reading of Scripture, because it allows for interpreting Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching. I think the other Catholics in this thread would say the same thing.

But that is not what you are trying to say. Rather, you are trying to say that from a purely textual point of view the interpretation which concludes with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the most plausible, and I’m not sure how many others would agree with you.

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

This thread has become my new favorite passtime! I look forward to reading everyone’s posts and researching the source material. This is by far the most educated group, both Catholic and Protestant I’ve run across.

Last night I came across a piece by James Akin called “Why Be Catholic” at cin.org/users/james/files/Why_Be_Catholic.htm

He makes a brief case for Evangelicals and touches on Sola Scriptura. Something that stood out was a reference to the Bible as a ‘Paper Pope’ regarding Protestantism. Is this an accurate/fair assessment of the degree to which Protestants cling to the Bible as the sole rule of faith and does this border on idolatry?

Viewing this as a convert from an all Protestant (SBC) family, I have become even more concerned about the state of their salvation. Any thoughts are welcome and appreciated.

God bless!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Then clearly show to me where the Bible///

No Eric, I’m not going to debate the Trinity with you. For apparently what is clear to me isn’t clear to you and so what would be the point? The mere fact that you claim that the Trinity is unclear, however, does not make it so.

At Nicea, Athanasius demonstrated that the doctrine is clear in scripture. I think he was right and I accept the conclusion of Nicea because the doctrine is clearly attested to in scripture. Any other view (e.g., Modalism, Arianism, tritheism) clearly denies a what the Bible clearly teaches. Since you agree with me on this, I refuse to debate the Trinity.

And it was done already by authority of the Magisterium through an examination of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

No Eric. “Sacred Tradition” has nothing to do with it. You haven’t even been able to define what that is, so appealing to it is completely without warrant. The truth of the Trinity is not established by appealing to “Sacred Tradition.” It’s established by appealing to scripture. That’s what the church fathers did at Nicea.

Many of them made deductions from Scripture that are just as logical as yours.

No Eric, they did not. Muslims deduce that Christians teach tritheism because Muslims do not distinguish between being and person. For them there is one divine being who is one person, Allah. Thus they reason that one being must correspond to one person. We, however, believe that scripture teaches that in the one divine being, three persons subsist. This is the conclusion that follows necessarily from the biblical teaching that there is one being who is God, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

Yes, but the question is: What constitutes “all the data we have”?

That would be scripture, Eric. Even Rome now admits that scripture is “materially sufficient” in matters of faith and morals. Since the Trinity is a matter of faith, then it follows that the entire doctrine is contained in scripture. The difference between our views is that we maintain that the doctrine is clear in scripture and requires no other infallible interpretation in order to know that it is true. You, on the other hand, require an infallible interpreter. Logically, however, that commits you to an infinite regress of infallible interpreters or forces you to simply posit a principle infallible interpreter in order to avoid that pitfall. You’ve chosen Rome. I’ve chosen the Bible.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that “all the data” equates “only Scripture,” then I disagree that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the only interpretation of Scripture that makes sense.

Well, then, we disagree. For if you believe this, then you must believe one or more of the following biblical propositions to be only equally plausible as some other competing proposition. So which of the following–in your opinion–“could go either way”?

1. There is one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. The Father is not the Son and not the Holy Spirit.
6. The Son is not the Father and not the Holy Spirit.
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Father and not the Son.

Which of these propositions here is truly up for grabs in your opinion? Which one requires “Sacred Tradition” in order to know that it is more likely true than its competitor? And once gain, what exactly does “Sacred Tradition” mean in this context? How would you define it, measure it, concretize it so that we could evaluate what propositions it is contributing to the discussion that we do not already find in Scripture?

Why on earth would I be compelled to give up my belief in the Trinity?

If you don’t truly believe that the Trinity is true on the basis of the scriptures–which cannot be broken–then you have no firm basis for believing in the doctrine. If you reply, “I believe it because the church teaches it,” I would reply, “And on what basis does the church teach it?” Check the records. The answer is because the doctrine is in scripture. That is and always has been the foundation for the doctrine. All parties–even the heretics–agree that issue is to be decided on the basis of scripture. We (that is Protestants and Catholics and the Orthodox) believe that Nicea got it right with respect to the precise relationship between the Father and the Son and the fully divine nature of the Son. Precious little was said about the Holy Spirit whose precise relation to the other two divine persons was yet to be worked out. But once again–what would the basis for working this out if not the scriptures?

So the Church simply “voted to go Trinitarian”, huh?

That is the implication of your view. If you truly believe that all the competing interpretations are just as (or even more) logical as that of Trinitarian theology, then surely you must believe in the Trinity because the Catholic Church decided to with “homoousias” rather than “homoiousias”–that that “iota of difference” was decided by the church–but in and of itself “could have gone either way.”

So yes. You believe ultimately that the Church decides what is true. But here you have the cart before the horse. We Protestants, on the other hand, believe only penultimately what the church/tradition/creed teach on this issue because ultimately what they teach is in accordance with scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Last night I came across a piece by James Akin called “Why Be Catholic” at cin.org/users/james/files/Why_Be_Catholic.htm

He makes a brief case for Evangelicals and touches on Sola Scriptura. Something that stood out was a reference to the Bible as a ‘Paper Pope’ regarding Protestantism. Is this an accurate/fair assessment of the degree to which Protestants cling to the Bible as the sole rule of faith and does this border on idolatry?

Yes, I have seen that some Sola Scripturists do, indeed, replace God with their Bible, so much to the point that they do not distinguish the Word of God (Jesus) from the written word.

They have a great reverence for scripture, but misunderstand that their interpretations may not be right. they believe, when they are thumping Catholics over the head with it, that it is “God talking, not me”.

I don’t think it is a "paper pope’, though. Each one that reads it becomes their own pope.

But, then again, the doctirne was invented to replace the successor of Peter as a source of authority, so that is not suprising.

Viewing this as a convert from an all Protestant (SBC) family, I have become even more concerned about the state of their salvation. Any thoughts are welcome and appreciated.

God bless!

God does not hold people responsible for what they don’t know Pray for them, and entrust their souls to a faithful creator.

The best way to help them is to be perfected in your faith.

 

[guanophore]

I'm not going to debate the Trinity with you.  For apparently what is *clear* to me isn't *clear* to you and so what would be the point?   The mere fact that you claim that the Trinity is *unclear,* however,  does not make it so.

This is great Miguel! In conceding that SS is insufficient for this task precisely BECAUSE what is clear to one person is not clear to the next.

Obviously the text can be twisted by the unstable and ignorant, which happens becuase it is unclear.

You have conceded the task because you realize it cannot be accomlished. SS fails the challenge.

At Nicea, Athanasius demonstrated that the doctrine is *clear* in scripture.  I think he was right and I accept the conclusion of Nicea because the doctrine is *clearly* attested to in scripture.  Any other view (e.g., Modalism, Arianism, tritheism) *clearly* denies a what the Bible *clearly* teaches.  Since you agree with me on this, I refuse to debate the Trinity.

Of course it is clear to those who already accept the Sacred Tradition on this point. To those that don’t it appears otherwise.

Arians also used SS, and came out with the opposite conclusion. This is because everyone reads it through their own perceptions and education (or lack of it).

No Eric.  "Sacred Tradition" has nothing to do with it.  You haven't even been able to define what that is, so appealing to it is completely without warrant.

This is not teh case, Miguel. ST has everything to do with it. Sacred Tradition is the Teachings of the Apsotles preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS.

Besides, the fact that mysteries exist does not mean they are “without warrant”. An idea does not have to be within your rational abilities to have warrant, Miguel. The Trinity, like Sacred Tradition, is a divine mystery. We can speak about it, embrace it, relate to it, but it is beyond our puny human conceptions. The same is true for the mystery of the crucifixion.

The truth of the Trinity is not established by appealing to “Sacred Tradition.” It’s established by appealing to scripture. That’s what the church fathers did at Nicea.

On the contrary, the reason that they could appeal to the Scriptures from the perspective they did is governed by ST. Otherwise, all “Christians” would now be Arian.

You will see that Athanasius, as well as all the other Fathers (Augustine) espoused the Sacred Tradition.

 We, however, believe that scripture teaches that in the one divine being, three persons subsist.  This is the conclusion that follows necessarily from the biblical teaching that there is one being who is God, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

If this were true, we would not have factions that beleive otherwise, and defent their beliefs using the same scriptures.

Arians and Gnostics would not have existed!

 

[guanophore]

  Even Rome now admits that scripture is "materially sufficient" in matters of faith and morals.

What do you mean, “even now Rome admits”? Those passages in the NT that indicate Scripture to be materially sufficient were written by Catholics!

Since the Trinity is a matter of faith, then it follows that the entire doctrine is contained in scripture.

No, Miguel, it does not. this concept is a Reformation invention that is false. There was never any effort made to commit the entire compendium of faith to the NT.

The difference between our views is that we maintain that the doctrine is clear in scripture and requires no other infallible interpretation in order to know that it is true.

Yes, of course. This is the reason that there is so much fragmentation in Protestantism. The fragmentation is evidence of itself that this assertion is false.

You, on the other hand, require an infallible interpreter.

Well, we could fall into reading the Scriptures apart from the faith that produced them. If we did, we could also create factions.

Logically, however, that commits you to an infinite regress of infallible interpreters or forces you to simply posit a principle infallible interpreter in order to avoid that pitfall.   You've chosen Rome.  I've chosen the Bible.

Indeed you have, which means you have made yourself the infallible interpreter.

Which of these propositions here is truly up for grabs in your opinion? Which one requires “Sacred Tradition” in order to know that it is more likely true than its competitor?

Miguel, you have misunderstood Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God indwelling the church. The Word of God does not make truth “more likely”, but completely knowable.

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.

The Word of God is not a matter of “likelyhood” but of divine revelation of the Truth.

And once gain, what exactly does “Sacred Tradition” mean in this context? How would you define it, measure it, concretize it so that we could evaluate what propositions it is contributing to the discussion that we do not already find in Scripture?

In order for you to be able to understand Sacred Tradition, Miguel, you would first have to posit the existence of it. Otherwise, it is like we are standing there pointing at the moon, telling you how the gravitational pull of the moon affects the tides, while the whole time you have your hands over your eyes and your back turned, repeating “there is no moon, there is no moon”.

If you don’t truly believe that the Trinity is true on the basis of the scriptures–which cannot be broken–then you have no firm basis for believing in the doctrine.

This is not true for two reasons, Miguel. One is that we have firm basis for believing what has been passed down to us from the Apostles because we know that Jesus has kept His promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”.

Secondly, the fact that we read the Scriptures through the lens of Sacred Tradition does not mean that it doesn’t contain foundations of the Church doctrine. We do not extract our doctrines from Scripture like our separated brethren. We receive them through the paradosis. Scripture confirms that what we have received is true.

Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

If you reply, “I believe it because the church teaches it,” I would reply, “And on what basis does the church teach it?” Check the records.

The record shows that Jesus explained everything to the Apostles, and that they chose faithful men, who were able to teach others also.

The answer is because the doctrine is in scripture. That is and always has been the foundation for the doctrine.

We do see the doctrines of the church in scripture, but the Church had this doctrine before the Scripture was ever written.

All parties--even the heretics--agree that issue is to be decided on the basis of scripture.

Yes, but the parties understand it differently. That is why the church is the tie breaker.

 

[guanophore]

We But once again–what would the basis for working this out if not the scriptures?

Yes, but specifically, the Scritures as understood through the lens Sacred Tradition, not Arian or Gnostic lenses.

That is the implication of your view. If you truly believe that all the competing interpretations are just as (or even more) logical as that of Trinitarian theology, then surely you must believe in the Trinity because the Catholic Church decided to with “homoousias” rather than “homoiousias”–that that “iota of difference” was decided by the church–but in and of itself “could have gone either way.”

Exactly! It could have gone either way. This is why Jesus had to send the Spirit to lead the Church into “all Truth”.

So yes.  You believe *ultimately* that the Church decides what is true.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Church understands and clarifies what God has revealed to the Church what is true. The Church does not have the authority to change or “decide” the once for all divine deposit of faith.

But here you have the cart before the horse. We Protestants, on the other hand, believe only penultimately what the church/tradition/creed teach on this issue because ultimately what they teach is in accordance with scripture.

Yes. There is no contradiction between the Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Scriptures, because they both come from the same Source.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

No Eric, they did not. Muslims deduce that Christians teach tritheism because Muslims do not distinguish between being and person. For them there is one divine being who is one person, Allah. Thus they reason that one being must correspond to one person. We, however, believe that scripture teaches that in the one divine being, three persons subsist. This is the conclusion that follows necessarily from the biblical teaching that there is one being who is God, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

Actually Muslims deny the Divinity of the Christ. For that reason they can never “deduce” the Trinity. The Trinity is completely beyond and above human reason or deduction.

Jesus Christ revealed the Trinity to His Church, personally. Man to man. Jesus did not work with a book intermediary. God always works directly through people.

It was the Church that canonized Scripture, NOT as an organ for people to DIY Christianity as the Reformers taught. It was to be the Divine foundation for what the Church taught. Anything that was NOT in compliance with Church teaching was not considered Sacred Scripture.

That is why it is such folly to use the Scriptures against the Church! You might just as well set up your own sect of Islam by claiming Muslims “don’t get” the Koran, and have a corrupt interpretation.

Why don’t you do that Miguel? Perhaps the Koran has all the secrets of salvation and the Muslims have a corrupt understanding. Have you read and self-interpreted the Koran to be sure? How do you know the Bible is correct???

 

[EricFilmer]

No Eric, I’m not going to debate the Trinity with you. For apparently what is clear to me isn’t clear to you and so what would be the point?

I commend guanophore for already giving an excellent point-by-point refutation of your post (and I like AmbroseSJ’s comment as well), so I will simply add a few thoughts here and there.

I thought I was very clear as to what the point is of this debate concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. But once more, for the record, the point is to see if the Bible is capable of determining doctrine in the manner that your definition of Sola Scriptura claims. In other words, I want to see if Sola Scriptura actually works! I want to see if it can get the job done!

In the old days vacuum cleaner salesmen would go door to door telling people the wondrous abilities of their vacuum cleaners and then they would give a demonstration of the product itself (so that people could see that it could indeed do what the salesman said it could). I’m not suggesting that you are trying to “sell” the notion of Sola Scriptura, but nonetheless you make me think of a salesman who is perfectly content to describe a vacuum cleaner but refuses to give an actual demonstration.

For about a year now on CAF you have described Sola Scriptura at length so now it is high time to “put your money where your mouth is” and give us a demonstration!

Moreover, in the past on CAF you have rejected a number of Catholic doctrines unless these doctrines could be determined within the parameters of your definition of the Bible’s material and formal sufficiency. As the old saying goes, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. So I challenge you to do the same concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If you reject, say, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because the Bible does not have the material and formal sufficiency to determine it, then you have to reject the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity for that exact same reason!

But if you accept the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity but not the Doctrine of the Immaculate then obviously Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with it, because according to your definition of Sola Scriptura, both doctrines ought ought to be rejected! Therefore, what is really going on here is that you seem to have set yourself up as the arbiter of truth with your personal opinion being the determining factor as to what ought to be doctrinal and what ought not.

So the real question at hand is not really Sola Scriptura but rather, it seems, Sola Miguel’s Opinion.

The mere fact that you claim that the Trinity is unclear, however, does not make it so.

The nature of the divinity of Christ and the nature of the Holy Trinity was debated by biblical scholars for the first three hundred years of Christianity. And, as I have already shown, these topics are still debated today! So this fact alone emphatically proves that the Bible lacks the clarity to fully determine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

At Nicea, Athanasius demonstrated that the doctrine is clear in scripture. I think he was right and I accept the conclusion of Nicea because the doctrine is clearly attested to in scripture. Any other view (e.g., Modalism, Arianism, tritheism) clearly denies a what the Bible clearly teaches.

Ok, so you think that people, including biblical scholars, debated these things for three centuries until Antanasius came along and pointed out a few bible verses that apparently lots of people had missed? And so I presume that they all then nodded their heads and said, “Well, now it all makes sense! I wish I had read those ‘clear’ Bible passages before, because they obviously lead to the ‘necessary deduction’ that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, and that even there is only one God, he exists simultaneously as three distinct persons.” I mean, come on! Lots of those people were heretics, but they still knew how to read the Bible. As a Scripture professor once said to me, “Arius was a heretic, but no one can say that he was not a good Bible exegete.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Since you agree with me on this, I refuse to debate the Trinity.

I disagree that Athanasius clearly taught the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity within the confines of your definition of Sola Scriptura. So by all means, I challenge you to post Athanasius’ determination of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and I will critique it with your definition of Sola Scriptura. We’ll see how quickly Athanasius goes beyond what is permissible according to the principle of SS.

No Eric. “Sacred Tradition” has nothing to do with it. You haven’t even been able to define what that is, so appealing to it is completely without warrant. The truth of the Trinity is not established by appealing to “Sacred Tradition.” It’s established by appealing to scripture. That’s what the church fathers did at Nicea.

Are you aware that the implications of your statement is that none of the First Century Christians had any explicit Christian doctrines prior to the writing of the New Testament?

Well, then, we disagree. For if you believe this, then you must believe one or more of the following biblical propositions to be only equally plausible as some other competing proposition. So which of the following–in your opinion–“could go either way”?

1. There is one God.

No problem. But where does Scripture say that one God exists as three people, and that the number of divine persons is limited to three (no more, no less)?

1. The Father is God.

Clear exegesis demonstrates this.

1. The Son is God.

But what exactly does this mean? Is the divinity of the Son “the same” as the Father or is it “similar”? Show me where the Bible makes this distinction (i.e., show me where the Bible says that the Son is “one in being with the Father”, as we say in the Nicene Creed).

Moreover, show me where in scripture it says that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father”, that he is “begotten, not made” (as the Nicene Creed states).

1. The Holy Spirit is God.

Show me where in Scripture it clearly demonstrates the Holy Spirit being a distinct divine person rather than what could simply be interpreted as a poetic description of God’s power in action (which is exactly how the Jews interpret the reference to the Spirit in such passages as Genesis 1:2).

1. The Father is not the Son and not the Holy Spirit.
2. The Son is not the Father and not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Holy Spirit is not the Father and not the Son.

As I pointed out, these (and other aspects of the doctrine) can be interpreted in other ways for the simple fact that they have been in the past and still are today.

For example, according to the heresy of Modalism, the distinction between the three persons is simply a distinction in role.

Others, such as those I linked in this Post would say that the Father is not the Son and is not the Spirit because the Son and the Spirit are not divine persons distinct from the Father to begin with.

Which of these propositions here is truly up for grabs in your opinion? Which one requires “Sacred Tradition” in order to know that it is more likely true than its competitor?

See what I highlighted in purple text above.

As for the comments in your last post that I did not address, I will simply say that I agree with what guanophore & AmbroseSJ posted in response to them, so I really have nothing more to add.

But I will make a final point: Unless you or someone else is able to show where the Bible clearly teaches the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, your definition of Sola Scriptura can objectively be rejected as invalid. This is not an opinion, it is a stated fact. If the Bible is neither materially nor formally sufficient for the determination of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, then obviously the Bible is not materially and formally sufficient for the determination of all doctrine. As an adherent of Sola Scriptura, you have to either reject your definition of SS or reject the validity of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

But once more, for the record, the point is to see if the Bible is capable of determining doctrine in the manner that your definition of Sola Scriptura claims.

It is. I claim that the Bible contains the doctrine of the Trinity (material sufficiency) and that the doctrine is clearly discerned from scripture (formal sufficiency). I do not accept the doctrine on the basis of Nicea or any other ecclesiastical decision. I accept it because it is the clear and only consistent interpretation of scripture. So yes–the doctrine of sola scriptura “works” just fine.

That said, you’re once again misdefining sola scriptura insofar as you continue to argue that any dissent or difference of opinion in the record destroys sola scriptura. That might be a good objection if we Protestants were to claim that sola scriptura implies that there will be no dissent. But we don’t make that claim.

One reason why we don’t make that claim is because we recognize that while scripture is a perfect objective source of doctrine that human beings are less than perfect interpreters of scripture.

For example, when Catholics argue that “he who hears you hears me” implies infallibility, we Protestants counter that you’re reading far too much into the verse. The same is true of the claim that the Spirit will “lead you to all truth.” None of these Catholic “go to” verses demand the Catholic interpretation of them, and arguably do not even permit the inferences that are drawn from them. So the entire claim that there is such an infallible interpreter to begin with ironically rests on very fallible interpretation itself.

So unless you can clearly demonstrate that there is an infallible interpreter, you have no basis for appealing to it to “break the tie.” In other words, let us suppose that in the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea of the son being “eternally begotten” is one of those “it-could-go-either-way” sorts of verses. Let’s concede for the sake of argument that you are correct. Now to settle the issue you defer to the infallible interpreter. Such a move may give you a feeling of confidence. But does it give you any more epistemic certitude than the person without the infallible interpreter?

I don’t see how, unless you could first demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that there is an infallible interpreter. For now you’re in the same boat you say we Protestants are. We want to know if your infallible interpreter can “do the job” its proponents say it can do. Show us exactly how the eternality of the Son is more certain with the infallible interpreter’s seal of approval.

At the end of the day, your appeal to authority is only as good as the reasons you have for countenancing that authority. But when we ask you for such reasons, you can’t produce any that decisively prove your view over and against the view of competing rules of faith. It turns out that the infallible interpreter is formally insufficient for proving the Trinity because the entire concept of an infallible interpreter itself lacks both a material grounding in the scriptures and would itself require a formally sufficient interpreter to establish the interpretation by which you affirm the existence of a fallible interpreter in the first place.

In fact you gain no epistemic advantage by positing an infallible interpreter that you can only fallibly demonstrate. You simply can’t argue from fallible premises to the existence of an infallible interpreter. No effect can be greater than its cause.

If that’s the case, then we have to humbly accept the fact that we have no infallible interpretation that safeguards the Trinity. What we have, however, is what God revealed in scripture, our God-given reason, the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore every reason to suppose that we can come to a true, albeit fallible, conclusion regarding what God has revealed about himself in scripture.

continued next post…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Continued from previous post…

So this fact alone emphatically proves that the Bible lacks the clarity to fully determine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

No, Eric. You’re really attached to this non-sequitur, aren’t you? But think it through logically. Disagreement over the meaning of scripture does not entail lack of clarity in the scriptures. You’re not considering the possibility of human error.

I wish I had read those ‘clear’ Bible passages before, because they obviously lead to the ‘necessary deduction’ that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, and that even there is only one God, he exists simultaneously as three distinct persons." I mean, come on! Lots of those people were heretics, but they still knew how to read the Bible. As a Scripture professor once said to me, “Arius was a heretic, but no one can say that he was not a good Bible exegete.”

Your Scripture professor is wrong. Arius was not a good exegete. He made errors. One such error was in his interpretation of “only begotten,” by insisting that “begotten” implies a temporal relationship between the Father and Son. The term however, does not require that interpretation, because it can also mean “one and only,” thereby making a statement about relationship. In other words, the term does not have to imply that there was a time when the Son was not.

Let’s say, however, that Arius’s interpretation is a valid exegetical option. In fact it might be. But if we do adopt Arius’ interpretation then we run headlong into conflict with other texts such as John 1:1 and 17:5. For in these texts the Son is described as existing from “the beginning” and “before the cosmos was”. Well, the “cosmos” is synonymous with creation itself. Time is part of the cosmos. If there was a “time” when the Son was not, it must have been sometime after the cosmos was created. But John 17:5 says the Son existed prior to the cosmos and therefore prior to time itself. Therefore the Son existed in eternity, which is outside of the created order and therefore outside of time. It is therefore impossible to adopt the “temporal” understanding of “begetting” that Arius championed. But we are not required to do so on exegetical grounds since “only begotten” can also be understood relationally as “one and only.” This interpretation squares with the claim that the Son existed “before the cosmos” (John 17:5). This is the interpretation that Athanasius maintained “contra mundum.” It is the claim that eventually became orthodoxy. We believe it is orthodox because it is true. It is not true because we call it orthodox.

Once you understand that the truth determines orthodoxy and not the other way around, then you’ll see clearly why your fallible argument for an infallible interpreter is not only unconvincing but also entirely unnecessary.

 

[guanophore]

But think it through logically.  Disagreement over the meaning of scripture does not entail lack of clarity in the scriptures.  You're not considering the possibility of human error.

On the contrary, this is precisely the need for the gift of infallibility. If the scriptures were clear to everyone, then we would not have to worry about humans making mistakes. But in fact, as you have demonstrated, things that are clear in scripture to one person are clear in a very different way to others. Everyone interprets them based upon their own experience and education (or lack of it).

Catholics read Jn. 6 and clearly see Jesus talking about Eucharist. Non-sacramental Christians read it and say it has nothing to do with the Lord’s supper. Both understand “clearly” from their disparate points of view. Who is to settle this dispute? Where did Jesus say to go?

Your Scripture professor is wrong.  Arius was not a good exegete.  He made errors.  One such error was in his interpretation of  "only begotten," by insisting that "begotten" implies a temporal relationship between the Father and Son.  The term however, does not require that interpretation, because it can also mean "one and only," thereby making a statement about relationship.  In other words, the term does not have to imply that there was a time when the Son was not.

The fact that he understood the term differently does not make him a “poor exegete”. There are many scriptures that can be interpreted in various ways. I just gave the example of Jn. 6. I have read good exegesis of this passage from opposing sides.

This is why the gift of infallibility is needed. Good people, faithful Christians, dedicated scripture students can reach mutually exclusive conclusions. This is not the unity that Christ intended for His flock.

 Let's say, however, that Arius's interpretation is a valid exegetical option.  In fact it might be.  But if we do adopt Arius' interpretation then we run headlong into conflict with other texts such as John 1:1 and 17:5.  For in these texts the Son is described as existing from "the beginning" ....

Arius had explanations for all these, just like the Reformed have explanations for all the passages that indicate salvation is not something that happens once in time, for all time.

  This is the interpretation that Athanasius maintained "contra mundum."  It is the claim that eventually became orthodoxy.   We believe it is orthodox because it is true.  It is not true because we call it orthodox.

What does “orthodox” mean, then?

 Once you understand that the truth determines orthodoxy and not the other way around, then you'll see clearly why your fallible argument for an infallible interpreter is not only unconvincing but also entirely unnecessary.

Not really, because we are still left with the problem that different Christians understand what is in Scripture to be “true” differently.

 

[paul_c]

It is. I claim that the Bible contains the doctrine of the Trinity (material sufficiency) and that the doctrine is clearly discerned from scripture (formal sufficiency). I do not accept the doctrine on the basis of Nicea or any other ecclesiastical decision. I accept it because it is the clear and only consistent interpretation of scripture. So yes–the doctrine of sola scriptura “works” just fine.

That said, you’re once again misdefining sola scriptura insofar as you continue to argue that any dissent or difference of opinion in the record destroys sola scriptura. That might be a good objection if we Protestants were to claim that sola scriptura implies that there will be no dissent. But we don’t make that claim.

One reason why we don’t make that claim is because we recognize that while scripture is a perfect objective source of doctrine that human beings are less than perfect interpreters of scripture.

For example, when Catholics argue that “he who hears you hears me” implies infallibility, we Protestants counter that you’re reading far too much into the verse. The same is true of the claim that the Spirit will “lead you to all truth.” None of these Catholic “go to” verses demand the Catholic interpretation of them, and arguably do not even permit the inferences that are drawn from them. So the entire claim that there is such an infallible interpreter to begin with ironically rests on very fallible interpretation itself.

So unless you can clearly demonstrate that there is an infallible interpreter, you have no basis for appealing to it to “break the tie.” In other words, let us suppose that in the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea of the son being “eternally begotten” is one of those “it-could-go-either-way” sorts of verses. Let’s concede for the sake of argument that you are correct. Now to settle the issue you defer to the infallible interpreter. Such a move may give you a feeling of confidence. But does it give you any more epistemic certitude than the person without the infallible interpreter?

I don’t see how, unless you could first demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that there is an infallible interpreter. For now you’re in the same boat you say we Protestants are. We want to know if your infallible interpreter can “do the job” its proponents say it can do. Show us exactly how the eternality of the Son is more certain with the infallible interpreter’s seal of approval.

At the end of the day, your appeal to authority is only as good as the reasons you have for countenancing that authority. But when we ask you for such reasons, you can’t produce any that decisively prove your view over and against the view of competing rules of faith. It turns out that the infallible interpreter is formally insufficient for proving the Trinity because the entire concept of an infallible interpreter itself lacks both a material grounding in the scriptures and would itself require a formally sufficient interpreter to establish the interpretation by which you affirm the existence of a fallible interpreter in the first place.

In fact you gain no epistemic advantage by positing an infallible interpreter that you can only fallibly demonstrate. You simply can’t argue from fallible premises to the existence of an infallible interpreter. No effect can be greater than its cause.

If that’s the case, then we have to humbly accept the fact that we have no infallible interpretation that safeguards the Trinity. What we have, however, is what God revealed in scripture, our God-given reason, the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore every reason to suppose that we can come to a true, albeit fallible, conclusion regarding what God has revealed about himself in scripture.

continued next post…

Miguel,
you are right that the entire Sola Scriptura discussion is about interpretive authority. Catholics say that the authority to interpret scripture rests with the Pope and the magesterium, who are the official keepers of the Apostolic Faith. We believe this because Jesus directly commissioned Peter and the Apostles for this role and promised to be with them through the Holy Spirit until the end of the Age. You deny these truths, despite the fact that they are faithfully recorded in Scripture and passed on through word of mouth in Catholic Tradition from generation to generation Instead, you feel empowered to interpret scripture yourself, despite the warnings in scripture to the contrary (2Peter3 as an example). You can argue that scripture is self interpreting all you want, but anyone who is the least bit educated in these matters can see that this is a canard. It remains a mystery to me why anyone would believe that they understand scripture better than the Catholic Church, which of course wrote it to begin with. How is it that you believe what the Catholic Church recorded in scripture but don’t beleive what it says it means?. This simply defies logic.

Oh, and by the way, I think you can discern the truth about the Trinity from scripture if you are predisposed to do so and are under the guidance of a Tradition that supports this view. However, if you are not, you will misunderstand the nuances of what is written, just as Arius did.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
So this fact alone emphatically proves that the Bible lacks the clarity to fully determine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Miguel, why don’t you think this through logically? If scripture is all that is needed to convey the truth about faith, morals and salvation, then why doesn’t it convey the same truth to all people? Why do some people feel, based on their reading of the bible, that all that is required to go to heaven is to believe that Jesus will save you while others, quoting the same scriptures, believe that you must partake of the sacraments, love God and neighbor, and avoid mortal sin. You must admit that this is not a subtle difference. And yes, human error is at fault. The error is that some people, like yourself, feel that they understand scripture, when they really do not.

Quote:
I wish I had read those ‘clear’ Bible passages before, because they obviously lead to the ‘necessary deduction’ that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, and that even there is only one God, he exists simultaneously as three distinct persons." I mean, come on! Lots of those people were heretics, but they still knew how to read the Bible. As a Scripture professor once said to me, “Arius was a heretic, but no one can say that he was not a good Bible exegete.”

Miguel,
Of course the truth determines orthodoxy. Your mistake is that you think YOU define what is the truth based on your reading of scripture. You think YOU are more qualified than the Pope to do so, which is of course ludicrous. Not only does he have the authority given to him by the church and 2000 years of precedents to support him, but he’s also a tremendous theologian and scholar by anyone’s criteria. Maybe you should read his latest work, Jesus of Nazareth, if you haven’t already. You might find it enlightening.

By the way, have you dropped your previous view of 1Corinthians 4, where you claim that Paul supported sola scriptura with his statemen not to go beyond what is written? By now you must realize that this is an untenable interpretation, since Paul clearly went well beyond what was written in the scripture of his day in his epistles. In fact, in Galatians, he is most adamant that the Old Testament covenant laws so prominent in scripture no longer apply to Christians. In doing so, he clearly showed that he did NOT believe in sola Scriptura. And if the Apostles didn’t believe it, how can it be worthy of belief by a Christian?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

Let’s say, however, that Arius’s interpretation is a valid exegetical option. In fact it might be. But if we do adopt Arius’ interpretation then we run headlong into conflict with other texts such as John 1:1 and 17:5. For in these texts the Son is described as existing from “the beginning” and “before the cosmos was”. Well, the “cosmos” is synonymous with creation itself. Time is part of the cosmos. If there was a “time” when the Son was not, it must have been sometime after the cosmos was created.

Your intelligence is remarkably quick and capable, but your prejudice outruns it. No matter HOW you define cosmos, Arius taught that Jesus was a sort of Super-being, created in Infinity before the cosmos. His exegesis is perfectly consistent, unlike your own.

What you are incapable of seeing, unfortunately, is how influenced you are by your own pre-conceived notions and first principles. You accept half of what the Church teaches (that is NOT found in Scripture) and reject half (again not found in Scripture). You are NOT truly objective.

True objectivity would not just ASSUME the bible has the Truth, as you seem to say. How do you objectively prove that the Bible is True? You just accept it on Faith, don’t you? But WHY?

St. Augustine said if it were not for the Church saying the Bible was True, he would never have believed it. That is a True foundation to a belief. It is based on the Church which gives us our first principles, such as the Bible is the Word of God. One doesn’t read the Bible in a vacuum. No, one reads it with a set of doctrines and first principles already in place. But how did they get there? Not from the Bible. That is the shallow and self-serving reasoning of sola Scrip., which is false.

You have your own caprice and prejudice to thank for your beliefs. You just know the bible is the source of Truth. But you can’t prove it to yourself or anyone else. You should instead dig deeper into your own first principles and try to objectively discover why you attach this meaning or that to Sacred Scripture, instead of patting yourself on the back for your “clear” thinking and understanding of exactly what Scripture is saying. Or congratulating yourself on your profoundly insightful exegesis, and waving aside any nagging suspicions that you are simply swallowing the doctrines and first principles of mere men, and arriving at your exegesis through their “insights.”

It’s not a coincidence that Protestants are sola scripts. That’s because they are FIRST Protestants, and THEN sola scripts, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, as they themselves like to think.

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

For about a year now on CAF you have described Sola Scriptura at length so now it is high time to “put your money where your mouth is” and give us a demonstration!

This is a reasonable request, Miguel. It speaks to the heart of this threads topic: “Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!”…You’ve told us, now show us!
MiguelSastre:

Eric Filmer:

But once more, for the record, the point is to see if the Bible is capable of determining doctrine in the manner that your definition of Sola Scriptura claims.

It is. I claim that the Bible contains the doctrine of the Trinity (material sufficiency) and that the doctrine is clearly discerned from scripture (formal sufficiency). I do not accept the doctrine on the basis of Nicea or any other ecclesiastical decision. I accept it because it is the clear and only consistent interpretation of scripture. So yes–the doctrine of sola scriptura “works” just fine.

Claiming and proving are two different animals, Miguel. Once again, it’s go time!

After 50+ pages of some of the best scholary work I’ve ever seen did you really think that it wouldn’t come down to this? This is your chance, Miguel to PROVE the case you’ve spent so much time and effort building. We’re waiting…:coffeeread:

God bless!

 

[ibetrippin07]

I agree, but then, SS allows people to do this. You have done this to justify your belief in SS. To those who have retained the apostolic faith, it seems like an “obvious error”. To you, it seems that ignoring certain passages is ok to do.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. I think peoples hearts lead them to certain paths in life apart from ss with or without it. I hold the apostolic faith is no different than anything Jesus taught or what is already instructed in the NT. so no ignoring certain passages is not ok to do…ever.

No. Individual Catholics have opinions, but the Church has the mind of Christ. Individuals can only benefit from the “mind of Christ” to the extent that they are in unity with the revelation of Christ by Himself to the Church.

I could easily say this for the protestants…

without an authoritative teachign authority outside of the Scripture, there is no end to the debate.

naturally. i would have to say just about any church leader from whatever denomination is fairly authoritative on the subject. most of them have written books, hold various doctorate degrees. if thats not authoritative i dont know what is!

No, ibe. If someone chooses to reject the Catholic faith, they depart from Catholicity. If they go out and start their own “bible church” they have “gone out from us”. They don’t remain Catholic in faith.

This same argument could be used for myself, which is why it clearly has NOTHING TO DO WITH SS

No, ibe. no one has to apostasize from the Apostolic faith to embrace heresies. I realize that many do, but they don’t “have to”.They choose to do it, usualy because their itching ears are looking for what they want to hear.

their itching ears caused them to open the bible to point out scriptures? smh

Indeed, He has already done that, by creating an infallilble TEaching Authority for HIs holy Church.

proof they are infallible and not Gods spirit through them?

This scriptures nowehre state we must “receive Jesus as Lord and personal savior”. The demons accept that He is Lord and saviour. They don’t like it, but they know who He is.

mhm Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

You are claiming that the bible is necessary to teach the Truth. The Aposltes were given the Word of God by Christ.

indeed

God wrote a list of core beliefs in the front of your Bible?

no this is what the bible IS

I can 'prove you wrong" that I am saddened by lost souls? I don’t think that is possible.

nothing to really touch on here

I pointed all of them out when they occurred. It appears that you are not reading my posts, but that is ok, because I write them as much for others who are willing to learn.

ah the ego boost

The mods are neither rash nor childish. They will investigate infractions of the forum rules before they suspend or ban you from posting.

The forum rules are neither rash, nor childish. they are here to promote good functioning of the environment. Your disrespect and repeated ignorant comments do not promote helpful debate.

always