Is Sola Scriptura idolatry?

[SyCarl]

Let’s see.
Why should we look at the Westminster Confession if it is a traditions subordinate to the scripture?


Why should we look at this link when we can look at Scripture?

Why look at the Westminster Confession? Because it contains what is meant by Sola Scripture. I am not defending a strawman definition of the doctrine as stated by someone who disagrees with it. I will define what I am defending.

As for looking at the Confession instead of the Scripture, it is a summary of what is revealed by Scripture according to the Reformed Churches. It is subordinate to the Bible. Again, A Sola Scripture does not mean we cannot summarize what the Bible says. I do not accept the whole Westminster Confession but I feel it sets out scripture alone well.

But then let us look at Scripture.

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31 NASB)

Verse 30 tells us that John did not record everything Jesus did. As a believer in scrpture alone that doesn’t bother me since, even if the rest of the Bible doesn’t contain what was left out, scripture alone doesn’t claim the Bible contains everything. What it claims is that it contains what is necessary.

Verse 31 tells us that John wrote so that we could believe and believing have life. We can have life by believing what John wrote. In other words he is saying that his book contains what is needed for life. That is what scripture alone says the Bible contains. Now if John’s Gospel contains what is necessary, then the Bible must as well as the Gospel is part of it.

Is that why the Apostles taught by speaking to the crowds? And praying with the crowds?

Scripture alone does not deny that there can be oral teaching. A person can receive salvation without ever seeing a Bible. I can tell someone what the Bible says and they can believe. Because something is taught orally does not mean that teaching contains something different from what is in the Bible.

Yes. But also it is evident by means of logic and by means of looking into history.

First, logic is what the Greeks viewed as wisdom and Paul tells us that the wisdom or logic of this world is foolishness.

Second, history teaches cannot show that the Church had authority. The most it can do is show that it claimed to have authority.

As is the reality that for millennia, the folks to whom the Church has been speaking have been unable to read the Bible.

As indicated above, scripture alone does not require that people be able to read or even have a Bible. Oral teaching can tell people what is in the Bible.

No.

It involves asking oneself why Jesus would abandon us for 1500 years before establishing authority in 30 000 denominations.

Or it involves asking oneself why Jesus would immediately establish authority in 30 000 denominations and then hide them for 1500 years until Luther could unwrap them and bring them out into the light of day.

And all this asking must be done while ignoring the reality that Jesus prayed for 1 Church – not for 30 000 denominations. Now do the math. 1 is not equal to 30 000.

Jesus did not abandon us for 1500 years. We initially had the Apostles, then the scriptures and always the Holy Spirit.

Your point also ignores the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was not the only church for the first 1500 years. There has been the Coptic Church, the Assyrian Church and then the Orthodox Churches. There have been dissenters such as Wycliffe, Hus and the Waldenses, to name a few.

I find it amusing that the figure of 30,000 denominations is thrown around so much as if it were the truth without any substantiation… Even if it were a correct number, those denominations have no more authority than the Roman Catholic Church does. There teaching is all subordinate to the Bible according to scripture alone.

There is only one true Church and that always has been and is the case. That is the invisible Church of all believers and is spread through out all denominations. I know that Catholics do not accept this but that does not mean it is not true.

 

[SyCarl]

And all this asking must done while ignoring the reality that Jesus promised us that he would never abandon us. How many times would he abandon us? 30 000? Or never? Now do the math. 0 is not equal to 30 000.

Who says that Jesus abandoned us. He gave us the Bible. He sent us the Holy Spirit. He is wherever two or three gather in His name. There as always been the true invisible Church. Because error entered the institutional church does not mean God abandoned us anymore than the error in Old Testament Israel meant that He abandoned them. As we are told there was always a faithful remnant of Israel, there has always been a faithful Church.

There is history. There is reason. Are history and reason nothing? But you are right. Nothing compels you to look at history and reason. Because you have the free will to choose Truth or to choose error.

As mentioned earlier, Paul tells us that the Gospel is foolish to those who look for reason and logic. As mentioned above, history only shows that authority was claimed, not that it was given. Now, it is your interpretaion that I have chosen error based on the authority of the Church and what it has told you. But there is nothing authoritative that shows that the Catholic Church is right.

Yes.
And it can.

There is nothing except the Church that says its Tradition and the tradition referred to in the Bible are the same.

As for authority, I have never been shown anything independent of the Church that confirms its authority. The Bible? But according to Catholics we don’t know what the Bible is unless the Church tells us so the Bible can’t be used to prove the Church has the authority. And even if you look at the Bible you are interpretting it to support your view, but as is so often said with interpretation, how do we know your interpretation is right?

No. It does not assume that it is infallible. Only in certain areas is it infallible.

If it is not infallible in interpretaions in support of your argument then what use is its infallibility? So yes, you are assuming it is infallible, at least in the areas we are dealing with.

The problem you are having is that you will not accept the evidence. You have started at the time of the Reformation and you have rewritten history from there. Even in light of Luther himself saying that he invented the term Sola Scripture; that he himself unilaterally and with neither inspiration nor with evidence added Sola.

You are assuming that I have started with the Reformation. I started with the Bible. I have looked at church history and the early fathers. While they did not use the term Sola Scriptura, their writing do express the idea. While they may contradict themselves on the matter and we cannot know their true belief in such instances, they do show that the idea was not new.

Like the Westminster Confession? Like Luther’s doctrines which later became Hitler’s doctrines? And which later became the doctrines which dictated the marginalization of First Nations peoples?

The Westminster Confession is a subordinate standard that does claim equal authority with the Bible. I will not comment on your spurious comments with respect to Luther. Even if they are true, we are talking about one doctrine here. Also no one claims that Luther was infallible. The Catholic Church has enough dirty laundry that it should not start slinging mud.

One would have to put some store in what Jesus said. Instead of putting store in one’s own sayings.

Show me where Jesus said which traditions that would be put forward are valid. Jesus warns us of man made traditions. It is not my saying.

The agreed upon inspired scripture? That scripture was compiled by who? Who gave you the Bible, SC?

Hint: The Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. The God gave us the Bible through the Holy Spirit inspiring the writers. The Old Testament was entrusted to the Jews. Protestants accept the Hebrew Cannon, Catholics the Greek canon, but are inconsistent in that they only accept part of the Septuagint. The New Testament is viewed as inspired by all professing Christians which means that it has been agreed upon by the true invisible Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Who says that Jesus abandoned us. He gave us the Bible.

When did Jesus give us the Bible? Hint: Not 1536.

SyCarl:

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of
367 A.D.

So between the time Jesus said that he would never abandon us and the time He gave us the Bible: was there a Bible?

Hint: :nope:

SyCarl:

He sent us the Holy Spirit.

:yup: Getting warmer.

SyCarl:

He is wherever two or three gather in His name.

:yup: Getting warmer.

Well, you were getting warmer until you indulged in all those off-topic red herrings. Now you are wandering away, far far away from the reality that there are gaps in Bible history. And therefore far far away from the question asked in the OP which was simply:

Is Sola Scriptura idolatry?

The OP gives one definition of idolatry as: an immoderate attachment or devotion to something.

Now, given the gaps in Bible history, is leaving no stone unturned to cling on to Sola Scriptura and then clinging on even when all turned stones reveal no support whatsoever for Sola Scriptura: is that not an immoderate attachment or devotion to Sola Scriptura?

Jesus did not abandon us. He kept His promise to us. He gave us the Church. He sent the Holy Spirit to protect His Church against error.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Why look at the Westminster Confession? Because it contains what is meant by Sola Scripture.

The point is that the Westminster Confession is not in the Bible. So why consult it if it is not in the Bible?

SyCarl:

I am not defending a strawman definition of the doctrine as stated by someone who disagrees with it. I will define what I am defending.

Understandable. However, please try to understand what a strawman is before grasping at straws and directing them our way.

The point is that you are defining Sola Scriptura by resorting to a tradition of man; an authority which is outside the Bible. And that tradition of man and authority which is outside the Bible is the Westminster Confession.

Moreover what your position implies for the rest of us is that it is OK for you, SyCarl, to do this. But it is not OK for 2000 years of martyrs, saints, popes, doctors of the Church, scholars to do this.

In other words you can have your own tradition of man and your own private authority, but the Catholic Church must adhere to Sola Scriptura.

Now is that logical?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Verse 30 tells us that John did not record everything Jesus did. As a believer in scrpture alone that doesn’t bother me since, even if the rest of the Bible doesn’t contain what was left out, scripture alone doesn’t claim the Bible contains everything. What it claims is that it contains what is necessary.

Necessary for what?

And please, if you are going to quote scripture then please be considerate of the rest of us and use your quote tags and excerpt it word for word, giving a link, and a cite which includes the book, verse, and Bible version. Thank you.

 

[SyCarl]

Necessary for what?

And please, if you are going to quote scripture then please be considerate of the rest of us and use your quote tags and excerpt it word for word, giving a link, and a cite which includes the book, verse, and Bible version. Thank you.

If you look at my post, I did put the quotation in quotes and the version. I did not put a link because there is none. I cut and pasted from a program, e-sword

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

First, logic is what the Greeks viewed as wisdom and Paul tells us that the wisdom or logic of this world is foolishness.

But since, once again you do not provide the exact words, the cite, and the book, verse, and Bible version, where does that leave the rest of us in this discussion? Having to accept your interpretation? Your individual tradition of man? If Sola Scriptura is so fundamental, then why do you not quote the words in the Bible?

Also, please define wisdom or logic of this world? Was Paul not wise in his letters? Was he not logical in his letters? Are you saying that if the Church’s interpretation of Paul differs from your own that the Church cannot understand the wisdom and logic in his letters?

If that is so then where is Sola Scriptura now? Oh, let me venture a guess. It is where it has always been. The tool of the wealthy, literate leisure folk to separate them from those who are poor, illiterate, dawn-to-dusk working folk. For what use would Sola Scriptura have for the latter folks?

And if it had no use for them, then in the world of Sola Scriptura, we are left with this:

• Jesus did not abandon the wealthy, literate leisure folk.
• Jesus did abandon the poor, illiterate, dawn-to-dusk working folk.
  And therefore all churches who hold fast to Sola Scriptura are elitist churches.

Did Jesus not want the poor, illiterate, dawn-to-dusk working folk to be saved?

Go to now, ye rich men: weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you. Jm 5:1 DRC

Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered much, saying: Who then can be saved? And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible… And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first. Mt 19:23-30 DRC

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If you look at my post, I did put the quotation in quotes and the version. I did not put a link because there is none. I cut and pasted from a program, e-sword

Struggle if you must. I communicated to you the difficulty in which you leave the rest of us if you do not quote exactly, do not give us links, and do not cite the book, verse and Bible version.

I have given you one way in a spectrum of ways which makes it easy for others identify a quote. If you wish to continue in your way, then you just make it more difficult for your own teaching to get through to us.

You can get techie info on the main page of this forum.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Second, history teaches cannot show that the Church had authority. The most it can do is show that it claimed to have authority.

Prove it.

SyCarl:

As indicated above, scripture alone does not require that people be able to read or even have a Bible. Oral teaching can tell people what is in the Bible.

And if oral teaching is not there? Then what?

SyCarl:

Jesus did not abandon us for 1500 years. We initially had the Apostles, then the scriptures and always the Holy Spirit. Your point also ignores the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was not the only church for the first 1500 years. There has been the Coptic Church, the Assyrian Church and then the Orthodox Churches. There have been dissenters such as Wycliffe, Hus and the Waldenses, to name a few.

I gave you one Bible gap. The first 367 years. Please place the Coptic, Assyrian, and Orthodox Bible(s) in that gap. Thank you.

SyCarl:

I find it amusing that the figure of 30,000 denominations is thrown around so much as if it were the truth without any substantiation.

Oh we’ve substantiated it until we are blue in the face. There is a search window on CAF if you would like to browse the threads on the 30K denoms. As it is offtopic here, I will not sweat the details. Why? Because the big picture is the disunity in Reformerland.

I find it amusing that Reformers downplay it even though the number is much higher when the non-denoms are taken into account. Almost as if to say that the Reformer-sphere is united and, if not united, then not really worried about the unity for which Jesus prayed, or quick to redefine unity – as you do below.

Even if it were a correct number, those denominations have no more authority than the Roman Catholic Church does. There teaching is all subordinate to the Bible according to scripture alone.

And their teaching is all different. So all that teaching according to Sola Scriptura has to be correct, right? Even if all that teaching contradicts itself.

There is only one true Church and that always has been and is the case. That is the invisible Church of all believers and is spread through out all denominations. I know that Catholics do not accept this but that does not mean it is not true.

Catholics do not accept the invisible church because it is not true. Invisibility leaves the 30K denoms unaccountable, doesn’t it? Is that the church which Jesus established? An unaccountable church?

Your version of the one true church is everyone holding fast to their own disparate traditions of man and then citing the Holy Spirit for those traditions of man even when those traditions of man contradict each other.

Truth does not contradict truth.
Faith cannot be unreasonable.

 

[SyCarl]

When did Jesus give us the Bible?

Scripture alone recognizes that originally teachings were passed on orally. There is no dispute as to that. The original books were all in existance when the last Apostle John died. Those writings were recognized as scripture even if they had not been compiled into a book yet.

This is no problem for scripture alone as long as what was taught as necessary for salvation agreed with what had been written. As indicated I can teach from scritpture without having a Bible with me. I can teach according to scripture even if I have never seen a Bible. Someone else may have told me what was in scripture. It doesn’t affect the point that the teaching is in accord with the scriptures.

 

[SyCarl]

The OP gives one definition of idolatry as:an immoderate attachment or devotion to something.Now, given the gaps in Bible history, is leaving no stone unturned to cling on to Sola Scriptura and then clinging on even when all turned stones reveal no support whatsoever for Sola Scriptura:

is that not an immoderate attachment or devotion to Sola Scriptura?

Whatever else it may teach, the Catholic Church agrees that God is the author of Scripture.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69 (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM

If you feel that belief that scripture contains all that is necessary for eternal life is idolatry that is your opinion. I do not share it. The idea that scripture is sufficient is not new. Statements in accord with scripture alone abound in the early church fathers. I can quote from Irenaeus, John Cassan, Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and John Chrysostom. I have seen others quoted by Protestant apologists but I have not come across them yet in my reading and have not verified them so I do not refer to them
I do not refer to the church fathers for the truth of what they say, only to show that the idea of the scripture alone is not new, even if not called as such. I recognize that some of these fathers also talk about tradition. All that means is that they appear to contradict themselves. I will not set out all the quotes since they are quite extensive.
I will quote from Thomas Aquinas, again to show that his writings contain the idea of scripture alone, whatever he may have said else where.

Objection 1. It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written (Deuteronomy 4:2): “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it.” Therefore it was unlawful to make a symbol as a rule of faith, after the Holy Writ had once been published.

Reply to Objection 1. The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.
(Aquinas Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 1, Article 9)

newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#9

Aquinas says here that the truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ but it requires long study and practice. As many do not have the time for this, a summary is contained in Articles of Faith. The Articles are not an addition to Holy Writ but are taken from it. The truth is in the Bible if you have the time to study it.

For such things as spring from God’s will, and beyond the creature’s due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate. (Aquinas Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 1, Article 3)

newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm
Here Aquinas says that God’s will that is beyond our normal reasoning can be made known to us only through Sacred Scripture.

I know that Cardinal Newman said that to know history is to become Catholic. I find that the more I read the more that I disagree with him.

As for the original poster’s question, whether you like it or not the same question can be asked of Mariology. I do not insult Catholics who say they do not intend to worship but only venerate. I take them at their word. I would ask that you give me the same courtesy.

 

[SyCarl]

And if oral teaching is not there? Then what?

If there is no oral or written teaching then there is nothing. Even a combination of Scripture and Tradition would require some form of teaching.

And their teaching is all different. So all that teaching according to Sola Scriptura has to be correct, right? Even if all that teaching contradicts itself.

They are not as different as you may think. With some exceptions the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are accepted by all. I attend a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. We have had Baptists, Anglican, Lutherans, Mennonite, United Church of Canada and even Catholic preach at our church. Different denominations share buildings. But if you feel there are great differences, you are entitled to your opinion.

Catholics do not accept the invisible church because it is not true. Invisibility leaves the 30K denoms unaccountable, doesn’t it? Is that the church which Jesus established? An unaccountable church?

Your version of the one true church is everyone holding fast to their own disparate traditions of man and then citing the Holy Spirit for those traditions of man even when those traditions of man contradict each other.

The invisible Church is accountable to God, who is the only one who matters. The Church is the body of Christ. Can you point to anyone and tell me that they truly have faith. Only God can tell what a person truly believes. If you can not show me one person you can guarantee is truly part of the body of Christ, the Church is not visible.

 

[SyCarl]

But since, once again you do not provide the exact words, the cite, and the book, verse, and Bible version, where does that leave the rest of us in this discussion? Having to accept your interpretation? Your individual tradition of man? If Sola Scriptura is so fundamental, then why do you not quote the words in the Bible?

Also, please define wisdom or logic of this world? Was Paul not wise in his letters? Was he not logical in his letters? Are you saying that if the Church’s interpretation of Paul differs from your own that the Church cannot understand the wisdom and logic in his letters?

If that is so then where is Sola Scriptura now? Oh, let me venture a guess. It is where it has always been. The tool of the wealthy, literate leisure folk to separate them from those who are poor, illiterate, dawn-to-dusk working folk. For what use would Sola Scriptura have for the latter folks?

And if it had no use for them, then in the world of Sola Scriptura, we are left with this:

• Jesus did not abandon the wealthy, literate leisure folk.
• Jesus did abandon the poor, illiterate, dawn-to-dusk working folk.
  And therefore all churches who hold fast to Sola Scriptura are elitist churches.

Did Jesus not want the poor, illiterate, dawn-to-dusk working folk to be saved?

You are now being insulting and silly. How dare you suggest that those who hold to the bible alone are elitest and do not care for the poor and illiterate. I will not comment on the history of the Catholic hierarchy on this subject.

I have attempted to be reasonable and charitable in my discussion. You assert your opinion as fact and ridicule my beliefs. As far as I am concerned this discussion is finished until someone who can be civil and respectful takes part.

 

[onenow1]

:coffeeread: Hi,

Here is an interesting verse. Read Acts 20:35. "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling you ought to help the weak and REMEMBER the word of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'IT IS MORE BLESSED TO GIVE THAN There are several events in the New Testament which cannot be traced to the Old Testament and so must have been handed down by TRADITION.

Some examples are: Mt 2:23 - Nazarene, 2Tim 3:8 - Jamnes and Jambres, Jude 9 - St.Michael disputing with the devil about the body of MosesTO RECEIVE’." The word ‘REMEMBER’, doesn’t it mean ‘KEEP THE TRADITION’? And if that isn’t enough, try to find where the Lord said, ‘IT IS MORE BLESSED TO GIVE THAN TO RECEIVE’, in the Gospels. You can’t because it isn’t there. Paul passed this phrase to the people by none other than ‘TRADITION’ [/u

Comment: In my opinion the following verse is very telling.Paul is talking to Timothy about sacred scripture, that Tim had learned as a youth which was the OT. Since there was no NT. yet, does this mean there is no need for it and the OT, is sufficient ?

2 Timothy 3​

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Idolatry no, poor reasoning yes. :twocents:

Peace, OneNow1](http://home.inreach.com/~bstanley)

 

[st_felicity]

Your reasoning is faulty on a number of grounds.

1. You are assuming a definition of sola scripture that denies that there can be traditions and practices outside scripture. That is not true. Sola scripture does recognize that there are traditions but that they are subordinate to the scripture.

No–I’m assuming that Sola Scriptura defines scripture as the sole authority in Salvation Revelation and that SS needs no hierarchical teaching authority to interpret this revelation for believers. This notion is ANTI-BIBLICAL.

Let’s look at the Westminister Confession of Faith as an example.

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Scripture does not contain everything but it does contain everything necessary.

1. You are assuming that the Catholic Church’s hierarchy and authority are clearly demonstated in the Bible. This is a problematic assumption. It involves accepting the interpretation of the Church in order to establish that authority. Yet until its authority is established there is nothing compelling us to accept its interpretation.

Nothing except Matthew’s Gospel and the Jerusalem Council and Hegesippuss, and Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertullian, and Cyprian of Carthage, and St. Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo, and on and on and on…

1. You assume that tradition as used in the Bible is the same as Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church. This is again assuming that the authority of the Church has been established first.

Catholic Sacred Tradition is the revelation to the Apostles handed on through apostolic succession. We accept the revelation of the Apostles of Jesus. Don’t you?

1. Even if it could be proved that the Catholic Church has authority, it assumes that it is infallible, which is again problematic, as it requires acceptance of the Church’s interpretation of passages claimed to show infallibility, without first showing that the Church is infallible.

Do you believe the words of Jesus?

1. It disregards the warnings of man made traditions.

Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition. It can be dated to the reformation.

1. It assumes that we can tell which traditions are valid and which are man made. Again this requires that the infallibility of the Catholic Church and its hieracrchy be established first.
2. It disregards that intent of accepting the agreed upon inspired scripture is valid to avoid following possibly man made traditions.

Your only complaint is the authority of the Church–which can be biblically and historically established.

 

[robert_ambrose]

no , but be prepared to get confused as you try and interpret scripture your way. Blessings.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

"Ani Ibi:

When did Jesus give us the Bible?

Scripture alone recognizes that originally teachings were passed on orally. There is no dispute as to that. The original books were all in existance when the last Apostle John died. Those writings were recognized as scripture even if they had not been compiled into a book yet.

This is no problem for scripture alone as long as what was taught as necessary for salvation agreed with what had been written. As indicated I can teach from scritpture without having a Bible with me. I can teach according to scripture even if I have never seen a Bible. Someone else may have told me what was in scripture. It doesn’t affect the point that the teaching is in accord with the scriptures.

So, Mr Carl. You are evading. Please answer the question I have put to you:

When did Jesus give us the Bible?

Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

You are now being insulting and silly.

I have used a line of reasoning which demonstrates that Sola Scriptura ignores the poor who cannot read. This may be uncomfortable for those who have never looked at this possibility before. But it was neither meant as an insult, nor is it in and of itself insulting.

As for my being silly: Mr Carl?

SyCarl:

How dare you suggest that those who hold to the bible alone are elitest and do not care for the poor and illiterate.

How dare I? This sounds like language used to put me in my place. What is my place? The notion of my having a ‘place’ from which I am not permitted to question a contradiction when I see a contradiction speaks in and of itself of elitism.

It also causes me to wonder if questioning Sola Scriptura is not some kind of taboo – and that would in turn make me wonder if Sola Scripture might be some sort of idol.

Also my comment was not to persons; it was addressed to the effects of Sola Scriptura.

SyCarl:

I will not comment on the history of the Catholic hierarchy on this subject.

Understandable.

SyCarl:

I have attempted to be reasonable and charitable in my discussion.

Then why call me silly?

SyCarl:

You assert your opinion as fact and ridicule my beliefs.

May I suggest that this is an overstatement and misrepresentation of my post? What I have done is taken care to present a line of reasoning. You have not addresssed my line of reasoning. You have merely questioned my right to that line of reasoning.

As for ridicule: your beliefs – like mine – should hold up to examination. Examination is not necessarily equivalent to ridicule. Having one’s beliefs examined may be uncomfortable at times, as I well know. But feeling uncomfortable is not equivalent to being ridiculed. No ridicule was intended on my part. And no ridicule was given.

SyCarl:

As far as I am concerned this discussion is finished until someone who can be civil and respectful takes part.

For my part, I can be civil and respectful.

For your part, can you refute my line of reasoning?

 

[Calvinator]

I have used a line of reasoning which demonstrates that Sola Scriptura ignores the poor who cannot read. This may be uncomfortable for those who have never looked at this possibility before. But it was neither meant as an insult, nor is it in and of itself insulting.

Maybe you are beyond reason?

In the debates I’ve listened to by professional Catholic apologists, I’ve never heard this before.

Maybe they realize that an argument such as the one you present is non-sense?

Maybe I missed your line of reasoning about how sola scriptura ignores the illiterate. Could you re-state it for me?

Earlier you rejected using the Westminster Confession of Faith as a guideline as to what SS is and what it isn’t. Maybe you should define your idea of what SS is before you debate it.

Knocking down strawmen isn’t much of an accomplishment.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Calvinator:

Maybe you are beyond reason?

Please address your comments to what I have said and not to what you feel my cognitive capabilies are. OK? Thank you.

Calvinator:

In the debates I’ve listened to by professional Catholic apologists, I’ve never heard this before.

I don’t understand your point? Could you clarify please. Thank you.

Calvinator:

Maybe they realize that an argument such as the one you present is non-sense?

Who are the Catholic apologists to which you refer? If you have never heard this line of reasoning from them before, then how can they be realizing that it is nonsense? That doesn’t make sense.

Can you demonstrate how the argument is nonsense?

Calvinator:

Maybe I missed your line of reasoning about how sola scriptura ignores the illiterate. Could you re-state it for me?

It is only a few posts above. Did you not read it before you commented on it?

Calvinator:

Earlier you rejected using the Westminster Confession of Faith as a guideline as to what SS is and what it isn’t.

Actually that is not true. Please do not put words in my mouth. I questioned the logic of referring to the Westminster Confession if the sole authority is Scripture. Why?

I think I have already explained why: because the Westminster Confession is extra-scriptural and therefore not authoritative. Because it is extra-scriptural and not authoritative, it is a tradition of man.

Calvinator:

Maybe you should define your idea of what SS is before you debate it.

I am open to any definition of Sola Scriptura which posters wish to make. It is not, after all, my doctrine. It is yours. Fair enough? Anyway check with st_felicity. She is the one who started the thread.

Calvinator:

Knocking down strawmen isn’t much of an accomplishment.

I agree. But accusing someone of building strawmen without explaining why the argument is a strawman isn’t much of an accomplishment either.

I am getting the impression that folks do not have anything more substantive to add to the discussion and are therefore resorting to ad hominem, false authority, and just generally unsubstantied innuendo.

I do not see anything wrong with putting forward a line of reasoning which counters mine. Why then are we not seeing that?