Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[PRmerger]

Do you really think that if Mary was without sin that God would have mentioned this in his Word. We know Jesus was without sin because it says so in Hebrews 415 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Right. So “all” have NOT sinned. Right?

 

[PRmerger]

Right. So “all” have NOT sinned. Right?

In fact, here’s another example in which “all” does not mean “all”

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.
Luke 2:1
KJV

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.
Luke 2:1
NASB

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 2:1[/BIBLEDRB]

All did not mean all, but just the Roman empire.

 

[JonNC]

You are under the misapprehension that when the CC proclaims something as dogma that it wasn’t proclaimed, believed professed prior to that.

This teaching has been a constant teaching of the Church, from its earliest inception.

Not exactly, regarding the IC. Holy Orthodoxy rejects it, though they accept that she remained free of personal sin. As regards original sin, their view of it is different, so in that way they view the doctrine of the IC as unnecessary.

I, personally, have no poblem with the IC, except it lacks a truly ecumenical council, which would include the Orthodox.

[Most Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as unnecessary. Because Orthodoxy does not see ancestral sin as an inheritance of guilt or a stain, there is no reason for the miraculous removal of either. Nonetheless, Orthodox tradition does hold that the Theotokos remained free of personal sin, a belief shared with some reformers such as Martin Luther.

/QUOTE]

orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

If its politics, then its politics that’s lasted for a thousand years. And if its plitics, then it shouldn’t be church dividing. I, too, recognize him as the patriarch of the west, and I agree with the east’s definition of his primacy of honor.

Indeed the pope is patriarch of the West. That is only one of his many titles. But he is the chief steward of the church, the shepherd of God’s flock. The authority of the Pope was established in the East in the first century by none other than the church at Corinth. That is Corinth, Greece, by the way. When they had a problem they could not solve they went to a higher authority. That authority was Clement, bishop of Rome. They did this despite the fact that at least one Apostle was still living, that of course, being John. Yet they saw a successor of Peter rather than one of the original apostles as their authority.

Quote:
But the creeds are not totally scriptural. They also rely on the Oral Tradition and the Magisterium. Seems to me that in accepting the creeds you, ipso facto, accept the basis that they are based on. This places you in a very real predicament. If sola scriptura is indeed true then those Catholic bishops who decided what writings were inspired had no authority to do so. And if they did not have the authority to do so then you, by virtue of sola scriptura, are placing your trust in something that may not be the infallible word of God that you would like to think it is. That being the case then protestant christianity is no better than any of the mythologies of the Greeks, Romans or other ancient peoples. But, by accepting the canon of the NT you automatically affirm the authority of those who decided it and that blows sola scriptura totally away. It gets kind of messy logically and it would be so much easier if God, in His infinite wisdom, had just given us an inspired table of contents to go with the Bible. But He didn’t. All He did was give us a church to decide those things.

I think the Formula of Concord, which I quoted, addresses this. Where writings reflect scripture - it doesn’t have to be stated word for word - as is the case with the Creeds and the first 7 councils, then they should be accepted as the consistent and universal teaching of the Church. That doesn’t contradict sola scriptura, that IS sola scriptura!

That is also the Oral Tradition. The creeds predate the scriptures. As for the councils, in reading the canons I find very little references to scripture. The Trinity doctrine that was worked out in the early councils doesn’t reflect sola scriptura at all. The doctrine uses Greek philosophical terms that are completely foreign to the scriptures. Besides, your Unitarian brothers would argue that the Trinity doctrine is not scriptural at all.

Well, I appreciate your honest opinion. Some folks like to flower over the divisions stemming from the Great Schism.

Jon

Like I said, the Greek Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholics share the same theology. They share the same liturgy. They are different in only in their respective views of the pope. The Byzantine Catholics are in full communion with the Pope, the Orthodox are not. And here is something else. The Catholic Church is comprised of 22 churches that are called Rites. Each of these traces their succession back to one of the Apostles. Of course the Orthodox do likewise. But of the 22 Rites in the Catholic Church, 21 are Eastern Rites, Now 21 Eastern Churches [Rites] are in full communion with the Pope. Apparently they have no problem with the theology.

 

[kepha1]

Do you really think that if Mary was without sin that God would have mentioned this in his Word.

We didn’t change the meaning of the title “Full of Grace”. To you, it is a bland description and nothing more.

We know Jesus was without sin because it says so in Hebrews 415

We don’t need a Bible verse to tell us that. In fact, “we” knew that before Paul did. To you, a bible verse creates the reality. It’s the other way around.

None of the reformers taught that Mary was a sinner, just the opposite. I won’t bore you with a list of quotes from Luther, Calvin, Knox and Zwingly, you may have seen them 100 times. So my question to you, gerard, is
who was the first Protestant to teach that Mary was a sinner?

You have no answer, yet you falsely accuse the Church of inventing doctrines, the very thing you do yourself…by following this opinion that has only been made popular recently, and reinforced by liars like Dan Brown. (Da Vinci Code)

But of course, you don’t follow the so called reformers, you follow the Bible! Well, that is as “reformed” as one can get.

 

[inkaneer]

Not exactly, regarding the IC. Holy Orthodoxy rejects it, though they accept that she remained free of personal sin. As regards original sin, their view of it is different, so in that way they view the doctrine of the IC as unnecessary.

I, personally, have no poblem with the IC, except it lacks a truly ecumenical council, which would include the Orthodox.

[Most Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as unnecessary. Because Orthodoxy does not see ancestral sin as an inheritance of guilt or a stain, there is no reason for the miraculous removal of either. Nonetheless, Orthodox tradition does hold that the Theotokos remained free of personal sin, a belief shared with some reformers such as Martin Luther.

 

[Philthy]

Miguel -
I truly and honestly appreciate that you took the time to respond here.

You’re kidding, right? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no “interpretive diversity” within Catholicism?

Of course not - I never said such a thing. Did you not read what I said?

1. So everyone agrees that Dei Verbum 11 teaches to total inerrancy of scripture in whatever it affirms and not just a limited inerrancy in matters of salvation?

“Everyone”? I don’t believe I commented on 'everyone" believing anything. The teaching authority of the Church has complete agreement on those issues which bind the Catholic faithful. That is the essence of the claim I made and I clearly distinguished it from the “individual” (ie everyone) dissenters within the community of Catholicism. Among the irrelevant “everyone” are theologians and academics such as the people you mention above who have absolutely no authority within the Catholic Church. Perhaps you are confusing - as in projecting - the authority you ascribe them (?yourself) within your own ecclesial community to the "authoritative elements of the CC. If so, you are mistaken.

1. So everyone agrees that in Lumen Gentium 8 the choice of the words “subsists in” was intended to teach that the Church is coterminous with Catholicism and not intended to include non-Catholic churches?

See above

1. What about the Molinists who—with ecclesiastical approval—are allowed to teach that election is conditional, while the Thomists—with the same ecclesiastical approval—are allowed to teach that election is unconditional? What “objectivity” does your church bring to this difficult issue when it essentially “punts” and allows two mutually exclusive theories to be held simultaneously as orthodox interpretations of scripture? I mean, honestly, how much more diverse can it get? Are the elect chosen by a sovereign act of God so that it is his will that causes our will to choose him (unconditional election)? Or are the elect chosen on the basis of the divine foreknowledge of their foreseen cooperation with grace? Both positions cannot be true, Philthy. So it isn’t rational to claim that there is no “interpretive diversity” within your church.

The Church permits the Molinist and Thomistic approaches to election because it has not dogmatically reached finality on various elements of the doctrine, but it has established parameters that neither can cross. For example - it is heretical to hold that God created some souls specifically for the purpose of spending eternity in Hell.
I find nothing wrong with that especially since ones position on election has nothing to do with their eternal destiny.

1. Is scripture materially sufficient? You don’t have to hold that view as a Catholic. You are also free to hold—as did most of the theologians at Trent—that the deposit of faith is contained partly in scripture and partly in tradition. Or—since the second Vatican Council, incorporating the insights of Karl Rahner, SJ and Yves Congar, OP—you can hold to the new “material sufficiency” view. But if you do, then you are holding a view that is, once again, mutually exclusive with the partim/partim view. For one cannot rationally hold that the deposit of faith is simultaneously contained in scripture alone and only partly in scripture and partly in tradition.

The Church allowing for flexibility in such a situation seems irrelevant to me. Especially since one’s position on the material sufficiency of Scripture has nothing to do with one’s salvation.

The list could be multiplied, which shows quite a bit of diversity over these issues within Catholicism

I’m unimpressed with your list. It’s an ivory tower list just like your ivory tower definition and approach to sola scriptura. The issues you raise have nothing to do with knowing God, loving God and serving God. They are largely issues for academics who confuse doctrine for holiness. And your raising them does nothing to explain how differences of opinion are resolved once and for all in your version of sola scriptura.

 

[Philthy]

First you level this criticism:

I suspect you haven’t even begun to understand the “manner” in which I define this; rather you seem determined to misrepresent sola scriptura every chance you get.

Only to follow up with this:

Bingo. I think you’ve finally understood our position.

Bingo indeed Miguel. Which is it - have I not “even begun to understand” or have a “finally understood”? It is you who is clearly confused about something since you both applaud and denigrate my competence.

Your argument is this:

1. If scripture were sufficient, there would be only one interpretation of it.
   (Hidden premise: Any lack of sufficiency, or clarity, must lie in the object of interpretation rather than the subject who interprets).
2. There are multiple interpretations of it (witness all the “interpretive diversity” out there)
3. Therefore scripture is insufficient.

No Miguel that is not my argument at all. As I said before, this is the argument YOU WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE AGAINST. I have already pointed out to you that it is the “INTERPRETIVE AUTHORITY” within protestantism that has demonstrated an inability to provide clear, recognizable, and final doctrinal interpretations. Do you understand the difference between “there would be only one interpretation” by “everyone” who reads Scripture and that there should be unity among the “authoritative interpreters” within Protestantism? Or do you need me to help you understand the difference? Or perhaps you don’t embrace the concept of an authoritative interpreter at all - and believe that every ignorant member of the faithful (myself included) is morally bound ONLY BY THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. Is that your position Miguel?? Yes or No please.

…it makes far more sense to postulate that any lack of clarity must reside in the fallible subject who interprets rather than the object that is interpreted. Sola scriptura—as historically understood—is the claim that the infallible, inerrant Word of God (which at least some Catholics affirm) is clear, but that we, fallible, errant human beings are less than clear. Interpretive diversity, therefore, is to be expected.

Hmmm Miguel lets think about this. God gives us (ie fallen humans with an inability to objectively discern the “object that is interpreted”) Scripture that is clear (to God, apparently) but which we, in our fallen state, cannot reliably discern. And Sola Sciptura’s profound contribution is that despite our ability to know that we have understood Scripture, that Scripture per se is not to blamed for it. Is that really your position? Well all I can say is that is tremendously comforting Miguel, and gives me great confidence in approaching Scripture. Seriously, I can only hope that eventually - you know, like before we reach the 1000 post limit - that you will explain to us how we are to definitively recognize the true interpretations of Scripture from the myriad of false ones that we are bound to produce. Without such direction we are left guessing Miguel, and something tells me that’s not exactly what God intended.

blessings!

 

[clab]

Hi,

I am just going to make a comment based on how I see things. I agree with some of the posters that not every thing God and Jesus said and did is written down. The Bible as it is written, is the inspired word of God. The Holy Spirit inspired people and they wrote things down. The collection of writing is what we have now as the Bible. God continues to inspire people today. Many christian writings/books/articles etc. are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they must not contradict the Bible. I think the key point is this. We all have a personal walk with Jesus Christ, and in determining what we believe, we need to ask the Holy Spirit through prayer to enlighten us to the truth. That’s why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Do you really think that if Mary was without sin that God would have mentioned this in his Word.

God does mention this in His Word. the Word of God can be found in Sacred Tradition. You wrongly limit the Word of God to the written Word of God.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy:

What you actually find is “a” meaning and that meaning may be the objective truth of Scripture or it may not; and you don’t have any concrete way of distinguishing the difference for a variety of doctrinal issues.

I don’t accept the skeptical premise you’re using here (and elsewhere)—namely that our own subjectivity gets in the way of arriving at any objectivity. If you truly believe this, then stop reading. ** Honestly—for any thing I would say to you in a post or you to me would be hopelessly beyond the possibility of understanding.** If you really believe this, then stop writing. For how could you—in good conscience—reasonably expect anyone to arrive at an “objective” understanding of your words? We could only ever hope to arrive at “a meaning,” but never “the meaning” of whatever it is you’re saying.

Oh but Miguel you overlook something very basic. **You and I aren’t merely reading words between one another; we are conversing and communicating *through ***words. When we read the bible, however, there is not the same “back and forth” that occurs in a conversation such as this. You and I can express our confusion over the implications, connotations, and applications of a particular statement and the other can, in the course of conversation, explain and clarify the intended meaning, context and application of our comments. That doesn’t always happen when we simply read a statement in the bible. The bible uses both affirmative (yes or no) as well as descriptive (less clear) terms. We cannot enter into dialogue with the text and express our confusion to it so that it can explain itself. Text does not have the capacity to explain itself. A person can explain himself. You can explain yourself and I can explain myself. The text of Scripture is not a person and cannot, therefore, explain itself. It is worth noting that when God wished to compose Scripture as a “stand alone” text that anyone could read and understand, he did so in the OT (Deut, Leviticus). The NT is not like that at all, and it’s relatively ambiguous nature belies God’s intent in having an authoritative interpreter along with it.
So your comparison and rejection of my original claim above is unfounded. You remain in denial over the practical limitations (impossibility IMHO) of SS as you have defined it. People genuinely seeking the truth often reach “a” conclusion regarding the proper interpretation of text according to SS, but they sometimes never quite know whether they have reached “the” objective truth intended to be communicated by that text. It’s a fact corroborated by the doctrinal duplicity of various Christian communities, and it requires something outside of Scripture to resolve it. Have you a proposal?

Scripture is the stable norm and is intrinsically clear due to its inerrant and infallible qualities that it alone enjoys as God’s inspired word. We, however, are fallible, which means we are not immune from error. That doesn’t mean we always get it wrong or even mostly get it wrong.

“We”? Who, exactly, is we?

In fact, I think we can usually get it right.

This is very comforting to know - a solid rock to build upon for sure…

But there’s no a priori claim that it is impossible for us to be wrong. That is why we must constantly check our interpretations against scripture. To be sure—traditions will develop. But the only possibility of overturning a questionable tradition is by comparing it to scripture.

Miguel you exasperate me. It sounds like there is no finality to the possibility of “overturning a questionable tradition” (ie doctrinal interpretation)!!! Is there a single doctrinal truth of Scripture that you can unequivocally say is objective truth and cannot be questioned and is therefore binding on the faithful??? Whatever you chose, please tell me how and when it was determined and who proclaimed it’s absolute truthfulness.

If it becomes tradition to argue that “Hail favored one” really means, “Mary enjoyed a fullness of sanctifying grace that must have extended all they way back to the moment of conception,” what is the fix to this obvious error?

Let me guess - we, the fallen fallible interpreters of Scripture - should weigh the options and decide which seems - for now, until someone raises a legitimate question - the most plausible representation of the truth.

The answer is exegesis.

Same thing as above!

Scripture really is the remedy to the traditions of men, as Jesus showed over and over again. How are you not seeing this?

You, and all the other Protestant denominations, the Mormons and the JWs, the 7th day adventists, etc, together with the Saints, ECFs, history and reason have shown me that Scripture and the Apostolic Church were never meant to be separated in the manner Sola Scriptura attempts to separate them. I hope that wasn’t hurtful - it is the honest answer to your question.

Blessings!

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;8022385:

Not exactly, regarding the IC. Holy Orthodoxy rejects it, though they accept that she remained free of personal sin. As regards original sin, their view of it is different, so in that way they view the doctrine of the IC as unnecessary.

I, personally, have no poblem with the IC, except it lacks a truly ecumenical council, which would include the Orthodox.

That is not exactly true. Orthodox have a very bad understanding of what the West terms original sin. To the Orthodox the result of man’ fall was a loss of grace so that subsequent mankind is lacking what Adam and Eve were originally created with. They view the West’s idea of original sin as something that was added to man not something taken away. We add to this misunderstanding when we speak about the “stain of Original sin” Yet the Orthodox will admit Mary was created kecharitomene.

full of grace. That is, with no loss of grace. So their denial of Mary being “immaculately concieved” is based on their view of the original sin of Adam as a loss of grace and not the addition of some “stain”. So if there is no stain then there is no need to be “immaculately concieved”. But ask them if Mary was full of grace [which is what immaculate refers to] and see what their answer is. They do the same thing with purgatory. They say they do not believe in purgatory. Then ask them what “Final Theosis” is all about. They will tell you it is ridding ourselves of imperfections which is what purgatory is. But the “P” word is Latin and Latin is a big NO NO to any Orthodox. So they will tell you that they don’t believe in purgatory.

Here’s hoping one of our Orthodox siblings will clarify.

Jon

 

[justtryin]

Wow… never seen a translation that made that say “bond slave”… .

I think it would be to GERARD1984’s benefit to point out why some are taken aback by the word bondslave.
To Catholics gerard, this verse of Scripture has traditionally made up our prayer The Angelus. We use the word handmaid instead.

V. The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
R. And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Hail Mary, full of grace,
The Lord is with Thee;
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners,
Now and at the hour of our death. Amen
V. Behold the handmaid of the Lord.
R. Be it done unto me according to thy word.
Hail Mary, etc.
V. And the Word was made Flesh.
R. And dwelt among us.
Hail Mary, etc.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
LET US PRAY
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts, that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross be brought to the glory of His Resurrection. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Hope this helps you gerard.

 

[Philthy]

The big difference is that this oral teaching became
Scripture.

Chapter and verse please that says “all the oral teaching has become Scripture” and oral teaching is now defunct.

 

[Philthy]

Darn it, here’s what I meant to say…

Hmmm Miguel lets think about this. God gives us (ie fallen humans with an inability to objectively discern the “object that is interpreted”) Scripture that is clear (to God, apparently) but which we, in our fallen state, cannot reliably discern. And Sola Sciptura’s profound contribution is that despite our INABILITY to know that we have understood Scripture, that Scripture per se is not to blamed for it. Is that really your position? Well all I can say is that is tremendously comforting Miguel, and gives me great confidence in approaching Scripture. Seriously, I can only hope that eventually - you know, like before we reach the 1000 post limit - that you will explain to us how we are to definitively recognize the true interpretations of Scripture from the myriad of false ones that we are bound to produce. Without such direction we are left guessing Miguel, and something tells me that’s not exactly what God intended.

blessings!

 

[gerard1984]

God does mention this in His Word. the Word of God can be found in Sacred Tradition. You wrongly limit the Word of God to the written Word of God.

That is why it is so important to stay with whats in Gods word. Before we had the new testament given to us, it was all taught by oral instruction of what they saw and what was revealed to them by God. I do not dispute that fact. They also quoted from the old testament. But they instructed the people to Repent and turn to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They were commissioned to preach the Gospel and that is what they did. Now years later, time had passed and God wanted his words preserved. We as his Church (the called out ones) can read and look into all these glorious truths of what God is revealing to us today in our Bible. If their is some doctrine that contradicts the word of God (his Holy Scriptures), we should have discernment as to what is a contrary to Gods Word.

The CC wants to hold fast to these traditions because they can not defend their doctrines by using Gods Word. I can defend Salvation by using Scripture alone. I can tell you what the Bible teaches about Salvation. I can read Acts and give you a broad summary concerning Salvation. If you can not defend your doctrine by using Gods Word alone, then you need to be as the noble Bereans were in Acts 17 and search the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying is true.

 

[PRmerger]

Not exactly, regarding the IC.

'Tis true, this. Not exactly, as you say. But, essentially, the belief is there. Was there, from the very beginning.

 

[PRmerger]

That is why it is so important to stay with whats in Gods word.

Catholics DO “stay with what’s in God’s word.”

You just haven’t provided any verses that state that God’s word is only in the Sacred Scripture.

We’ve asked for chapter and verse that tells you this, but have not yet received this from you.

 

[PRmerger]

Before we had the new testament given to us, it was all taught by oral instruction of what they saw and what was revealed to them by God. I do not dispute that fact.

Yes. And they taught infallibly when they preached the Gospel–you believe this, I presume?

(Or are you going to say that no man could ever be infallible, except for Jesus? If this is your proposition, then could you please provide a time when an apostle preached the Gospel of Jesus in error.)

They also quoted from the old testament.

Yes.

But they instructed the people to Repent and turn to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes.

They were commissioned to preach the Gospel and that is what they did.

Infallibly, right? So men have been infallible–you believe this, right?

Now years later, time had passed and God wanted his words preserved

.
Chapter and verse for when God commanded this, after time passed.

If their is some doctrine that contradicts the word of God (his Holy Scriptures), we should have discernment as to what is a contrary to Gods Word.

Fair enough.

[SIGN1]But there is no Catholic doctrine that is contrary to Scripture. None.[/SIGN1]

The CC wants to hold fast to these traditions because they can not defend their doctrines by using Gods Word.

You have yet to propose any Catholic doctrine that cannot be defended by using God’s Word.

 

[PRmerger]

I can read Acts and give you a broad summary concerning Salvation.

Can you tell us where Acts says that it is the Word of God? Chapter and verse, please, from Acts, identifying that it is inspired.

If you can not defend your doctrine by using Gods Word alone, then you need to be as the noble Bereans were in Acts 17 and search the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying is true.

This is curious. Did the Bereans hear about Christ from the Scriptures, or from the **oral **teaching of Paul?