Is there any problem with Sola Scriptura?

[Abu]

For the confused who don’t know the teaching of Christ through His Church and Her Scriptures and try to escape Her mandate from Christ.

As a companion of Christ, Saint John wrote: “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by on, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

So where are the selfists now who don’t want to listen to Christ and His Church but do their own thing? And the same failure to listen to Christ’s Church has produced some 40,000 sects all differing in some way!

 

[kgomez317]

2 Thesselonians 2:15 seems to think there is a problem with just holding true to “letter” (the Bible) and not “by word of mouth” (tradition) Try to imagine a simple tradition…say Easter…the Bible never says to celebrate it yearly on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, but it is every year… When I was protestant, these are the things that made me believe there’s more to the old song I learned The B_I_B_L_E. They were against Catholic tradition but at nearly 38 yrs of age, I still remember that song. Hope you find the answer you’re looking for

 

[po18guy]

Could you provide the chapter and verse?

Yeah…
Saint Paul would have chosen even stronger words if he suspected that his epistles would be twisted in support of division.

1 Corinthians 11:19 King James Version (KJV)
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[TraditonRules]

The foundation for Catholicism is not found in the bible such as purgatory. Moses and Christ speak of the bible and infallibility, final authority but that is suppose to be ignored.

Your argument could very well be 100% correct but you can’t back that based upon the bible its based upon Tradition. That is my only point.

First of all, Sola Scriptura has not been addressed with Scripture “several times.” I’ve seen all the arguments, and at best people are only able to provide a handful of verses, none of which actually state the principle of Sola Scriptura.

Secondly, I did read the previous posts. You’ll find my response concerning 2Tim 3:16 in Post #30. As for your other points…

Saying, “It is written” does not equal the principle of Sola Scriptura.
Jesus’ condemnation of the Jewish “traditions of the elders” does not equal Sola Scriptura.
Even if I went with your translation of “God-breathed” rather than “inspired by God” (in 2Tim 3:16), it still would not equal Sola Scriptura.

I challenge you to give me your definition of Sola Scriptura and then post one or more passages from the Bible that says the exact same thing. If you post a verse and then start making extrapolations beyond the plain words of the text then your definition of Sola Scriptura stems from an interpretation of the text (which will be just one among other contrary interpretations) rather than what the text says on its own.

Thanks for the clarification (although I don’t really know what a traditon is).

 

[EricFilmer]

The foundation for Catholicism is not found in the bible such as purgatory. Moses and Christ speak of the bible and infallibility, final authority but that is suppose to be ignored.

Before you accuse Catholics (and Jews and Orthodox Christians) of ignoring what Moses and Jesus said about the Bible being the “final authority”, you need to provide the Scripture verses where they actually said that the Bible is the “final authority.”

Your argument could very well be 100% correct but you can’t back that based upon the bible its based upon Tradition. That is my only point.

You’re dodging my actual material. I say this for the simple fact that nowhere in this thread have I presented an argument based upon Tradition rather than the Bible.

For example, the challenge I set before you is not based upon Tradition, rather, it is based upon your definition of Sola Scriptura and what Scripture actually says. So, once again, here is the challenge I presented to you from Post #34:

I challenge you to give me your definition of Sola Scriptura and then post one or more passages from the Bible that says the exact same thing. If you post a verse and then start making extrapolations beyond the plain words of the text then your definition of Sola Scriptura stems from an interpretation of the text (which will be just one among other contrary interpretations) rather than what the text says on its own.

As for my other material in this thread, I fail to see where I relied upon Tradition rather than Scripture to make my point. For example:

Post #30: I used Scripture (not Tradition) to demonstrate that 2Tim 3:16 does not teach Sola Scriptura.

Post #32: Within the three points…
Point #1: I stated the majority opinion among Jewish & Christian Scripture scholars is that the Book of Genesis was written after the Exodus event. This is an aspect of historical tradition (although not Sacred Tradition) as well as Scriptural analysis. If you think this is wrong then provide an argument against it, citing credible scholars.

Point #2: If you want to disprove my argument stemming from this particular point, you only need to successfully accomplish the challenge I previously set before you in green text. As I have already stated, this challenge is not based on Tradition.

Point #3: I pointed out that throughout the collective four thousand-year history of Jews, Catholics and all the various Orthodox Christians, there have been billions of people who read the same Scriptures that you did and failed to see Sola Scriptura being taught therein. Once again, this is an argument that does not rely upon Tradition. So if you have a proper rebuttal against this then let’s hear it.

And one final point, when you make statements such as, “Your argument could very well be 100% correct but you can’t back that based upon the bible”, you are presuming that Sola Scriptura is a valid principle when critiquing other people’s material before actually proving it to be so.

 

[TraditonRules]

Could you provide the chapter and verse?

Consider this;

the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6)…This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it”

(Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested…Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6).

Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring:thumbsup:: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…”(Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically

 

[inkaneer]

The problem is a Reformed person, an Arminian person, a Lutheran and a Catholic all sit down and read Ephesians 2. However they all read it differently because they have been taught a doctrine which builds in presuppositions which color their understanding of the Word. So the Bible doesn’t change, but a Calvinist and an Arminian and a Catholic and a Lutheran etc will read the same words differently because of those presuppositions built upon the doctrines they have been taught.

Therefore it is of utmost importance to find, as best as we are able with the help of the Holy Spirit to find the Church which teaches the Bible accurately. In my opinion that would be either the Roman Catholic Church or Certain Dioceses within the Lutheran Church. Having found this then it is up to the believer to understand that Christ founded His Church and to submit to Her teaching. Thus even though the Bible may seem enigmatic it with the help of the great thinkers of the Church (tradition) plus the teaching of the Priest which helps us to understand the Bible correctly.

God Bless

s

This is where the testimony of the early church fathers comes in. These writers lived long before the church splintered into the factions you mentioned. So it is easy to compare each of these “presuppositions” against what the early church believed and thus one can discard those “presuppositions” and errant traditions that are in conflict with the early church. So the problem is not one that can not be solved. The problem is, are you willing to accept the solution? Catholics are. Because the early church was totally Catholic and in doctrinal lockstep with the Catholic Church of today. Those Reformed persons, Arminian persons and Lutherans have deviated from the faith as handed down by the Apostles.

 

[inkaneer]

Indeed…

…the Bible does teach implicitly and logically,ifnot formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice.

This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.

And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.

The problem with your posoitin is that scripture does not tell us what scripture is. A bunch of men said these 27 books are scripture. Scripture never says that the epistle of Paul to Philomen is inspired. Maybe you can prove to me it is??? Does it seem reasonable or logical that God would preserve His word in writing but never tell us what that writing was? And why would the scriptures tell us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth if God’s word was preserved in writing? Shouldn’t scripture say that of itself? It doesn’t. And if scripture is the word of God preserved then why does scripture say we are to hold on to the teachings received by word of mouth as well as written? Should it not say we are to hold onto just that which is written? But it doesn’t. You got some very big holes in your doctrinal boat to patch. Better wake up and smell the incense.

By the way, if scripture says that it makes us competent for every good work [2 Tim. 3:16-17]. What is missing there? Shouldn’t it say that scripture saves us? Or is it the good works that saves us? Being competent for good work doesn’t save anyone. So do we look for salvation outside of scripture? Forget about patching the holes in your doctrinal boat. You scuttled the ship…

 

[bogeydogg]

s

This is where the testimony of the early church fathers comes in. These writers lived long before the church splintered into the factions you mentioned. So it is easy to compare each of these “presuppositions” against what the early church believed and thus one can discard those “presuppositions” and errant traditions that are in conflict with the early church. So the problem is not one that can not be solved. The problem is, are you willing to accept the solution? Catholics are. Because the early church was totally Catholic and in doctrinal lockstep with the Catholic Church of today. Those Reformed persons, Arminian persons and Lutherans have deviated from the faith as handed down by the Apostles.

As I said in Post #31

*I will always treasure Scripture because it is apparent to me that Augustine did, Thomas did, Paul did, and above all Christ did, and I need no further witness. When i left the LDS group the first church I joined was emergent and the reason I left was because I kept reading my Bible. Then I joined a revivalist/charismatic group and left because I was reading my Bible. Then I joined a Reformed group and left because I was reading my Bible. Now I am joined to the Lutheran Church and I continue to question and study and read my Bible.

That is why I am here again and again asking these questions because i am questioning myself and my thoughts far more than I am questioning the RCC teachings. I want to know why I disagree with the Church that it seems plain to me that Christ founded and the Bishops handed down.

And so I ask myself again and again.

Did Luther have the authority to break away based on Scripture or should he have stayed in the Church and made his grievances heard in a civil manner which would have preserved the union. Of course the Book of Concorde teaches that the Lutherans were thrown out at Trent and didn’t want to leave, I am hoping that is one more question to be answered at RCIA.

In the meanwhile, I will read my Bible because the Gospel is the power of God for salvation. And it is, to me, the most precious thing in the world. *

For me the journey is not over. I am willing to be changed as God wills and His Word commands because I think that is what a Christian is. I think the greatest failing of Luther is that once his mind was made up he refused to listen any further except to those who agreed with him. And the teaching I find most disturbing in the Lutheran Church is that when I raise questions about Lutheran Doctrine from,for example, Augustine or Thomas, I am reminded that “Luther taught such and such and Luther is who we should listen to.”

Well, as one raised in LDS group, that reeks of those who said, “Well Joseph Smith said… so you should…”

And I have a problem with that. So like I said, the journey is not over.

So I have begun to pray my rosary and I am seeking guidance as I wait for RCIA next fall.

God Bless

 

[TraditonRules]

Look at previous posts, scripture over and over says specifically through Christ and Moses to follow the authority of the scripture, to not add man made Tradition.

It seems logical to use your expression, then that written word not unwritten word which gets mis translated over hundreds of years is infallible.

Hey I know Catholics have a tremendous argument that tradition trumps the bible. But as well, Sola has a compelling argument as well that Catholics are mis guided based upon specifics of scripture.

The problem with your posoitin is that scripture does not tell us what scripture is. A bunch of men said these 27 books are scripture. Scripture never says that the epistle of Paul to Philomen is inspired. Maybe you can prove to me it is??? Does it seem reasonable or logical that God would preserve His word in writing but never tell us what that writing was? And why would the scriptures tell us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth if God’s word was preserved in writing? Shouldn’t scripture say that of itself? It doesn’t. And if scripture is the word of God preserved then why does scripture say we are to hold on to the teachings received by word of mouth as well as written? Should it not say we are to hold onto just that which is written? But it doesn’t. You got some very big holes in your doctrinal boat to patch. Better wake up and smell the incense.

By the way, if scripture says that it makes us competent for every good work [2 Tim. 3:16-17]. What is missing there? Shouldn’t it say that scripture saves us? Or is it the good works that saves us? Being competent for good work doesn’t save anyone. So do we look for salvation outside of scripture? Forget about patching the holes in your doctrinal boat. You scuttled the ship…

 

[in_servitude]

Hey I know Catholics have a tremendous argument that tradition trumps the bible. But as well, Sola has a compelling argument as well that Catholics are mis guided based upon specifics of scripture.

Matthew 16:19

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

If scripture is all there is, what is this talking about? Why would Peter bind or loose anything? Why would Peter’s decision to bind or loose have any implications for Heaven?

Were the keys confiscated when Peter died? Or, where they distributed to a whole bunch of people?

 

[EricFilmer]

Consider this;

the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6)…This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it”

(Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested…Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6).

Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring:thumbsup:: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…”(Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically

I assume that your response here to pablope is meant to address my questions as well. I will address these Scripture passages one at a time, as time permits.

If an examination of 1Corinthians 4:6 is done in the full context of the entire epistle then we see that it does not teach Sola Scriptura. I will now present some passages from 1Corinthians to be considered, and I will highlight the various “it is written…” statements in blue text to help one understand what Paul means in the broader context of this epistle. As a side note, I am using the RSV translation.

We start with 1Cor 1:10-17. Herein we see the first topic that 1Corinthians addresses. Paul is concerned over divisions that have occurred among the Christians in Corinth.

1Corinthians 1:10-17
[10] I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
[11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Next we should consider sections of 1Corinthians where Paul teaches how to overcome prideful behavior so that unity can be restored.

1Corintians 1:18-25
[18]For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
[19] For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.”
[20] Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
[21] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
[22] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
[23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
[24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
[25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

(1Cor 1:19 quotes Isaiah 29:14)

1Corinthians 1:26-31
[26] For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth;
[27] but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,
[28] God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
[29] so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
[30] He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
[31] therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”

(1Cor 1:31 concludes Chapter 1 and it quotes Jer 9:24. Paul also uses this same quote from Jeremiah in 2Corinthians 10:17 wherein he tells the Corinthians to only be boastful within the limits God has apportioned.)

1Corinthians 3:18-23
[18] Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
[19] For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
[20] and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”
[21] So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours,
[22] whether Paul or Apol’los or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours;
[23] and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

(1Cor 3:19 quotes Job 5:13 and 1Cor 3:20 quotes Psalm 94:11. Moreover, Paul’s opening statement of “For the wisdom of this world is folly with God” is a paraphrase of what he said in 1Cor 1:20, indicating that he is still addressing the disunity among Corinthians problem.)

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

1Corinthians 4:1-13
[1] This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
[2] Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.
[3] But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
[4] I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
[5] Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.
[6] I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
[7] For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?
[8] Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!
[9] For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men.
[10] We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.
[11] To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless,
[12] and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure;
[13] when slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things.

The question at hand is: What does Paul mean in 1Cor 4:6 when he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”? If you take a moment to read the above passages from 1Corinthians highlighted in blue text you will see that Paul writes, “It is written…” three times as an introduction to four quotes from the Old Testament. Each quote cautions people against the sin of pride. After making these statements, Paul states, in 1Cor 4:6:

“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren…” (i.e., The teachers follow the same rules given to students)

“…that you may learn by us…” (i.e., “Follow our example”)

“…not to go beyond what is written,…” (I’ll come back to this in a moment)

“…that none of you may be puffed up…” (“Puffed up” means to be prideful)

“…in favor of one against the other.” (The ramifications of prideful behavior is division in the community)

In light of all this, I believe that when Paul tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”, he is simply reminding them to adhere to the warnings about prideful behavior that he expressed earlier with the “it is written…” preludes (i.e., 1Cor 1:19, 31; 3:19, 20). After all, when we examine the entire verse from 1Cor 4:6, right after he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written” he says the reason why: “…that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against the other.” In other words, pride causes people to mistreat others (by favoring certain people over them), and this mistreatment results in divisions. Hence, we are to heed the warnings of the Old Testament against pride, treat people with the respect they deserve, and this will allow unity rather than disunity. Simply put, these various passages from 1Corinthians address the behavior of the Corinthians – Paul wants them to conduct in proper Christian behavior (the virtue of humility) in order to correct the dissension caused by their previous bad behavior (the sin of pride). So the problem Paul is addressing is bad behavior, and not the formulation of false doctrines.

In light of all this, the context of 1Corinthians does not involve Paul teaching a general principle that people are not allowed to formulate doctrine outside of Scripture, and therefore he is not teaching Sola Scriptura. An attempt to read a Sola Scriptura statement into 1Corinthians 4:6 ignores the entire context of the rest of the epistle.

 

[EricFilmer]

Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it”

(Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested…Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6.

Ok, here are the full passages of the Scripture verses being examined here:

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it;
that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deut 4:2, RSV)

Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6, RSV)

According to the Jewish Study Bible, these are references to the Torah (i.e., the first five books of the Bible, referred to as the Pentateuch in Greek). In many English translations, the Hebrew word “Torah” is translated as either “law” or “word.”

Deut 4:2
“This admonition not to alter the Torah, whether by addition or subtraction (cf. 13:1), parallels similar admonitions in wisdom literature (Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14; 12:12-13; Sir. 42:21; cf. Revelation 22:18-19).”

• Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, eds, The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press: New York, 1999), 370, emphasis added.

Proverbs 30:6
“This is said of the Torah in Deut. 4:2 (similarly Deut. 31:1).”

• Ibid, 1495, emphasis added.

The commandment, therefore is not to remove words from the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), nor add words to them. With the possible exception of the Sadducees, the Jews never saw such passages as saying that God’s revelation was to be found solely within the Torah, or that doctrine could not be formulated from sources outside of the Torah. After all, the passage you cited from Proverbs is not found within the Torah, so it is paradoxical to teach that one is supposed to only use the Torah to formulate doctrine, but then cite a book outside of the Torah to back it up.

In light of all this, if you use Deut 4:2 and Proverbs 30:5-6 as an example of Sola Scriptura, then that means that we are only allowed to have the first five books in the Bible, and the rest of the OT needs to be thrown out, including the Book of Proverbs which you cited as a doctrinal authority. Moreover, the entire NT would have to be thrown out. So how does that make any sense?

From the Catholic perspective, Sacred Tradition does not remove or add to any text found within the Torah, so we are not guilty of violating the warnings listed in Deut 4:2 or Prov 30:6. Our copies of the Torah are just as intact as the ones in Jewish and Protestant Bibles.

 

[TraditonRules]

Matthew 16:19

If scripture is all there is, what is this talking about? Why would Peter bind or loose anything? Why would Peter’s decision to bind or loose have any implications for Heaven?

Were the keys confiscated when Peter died? Or, where they distributed to a whole bunch of people?

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written.

This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1)

. Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.

 

[EricFilmer]

Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring:thumbsup:: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…”(Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically

First of all, John wrote Revelation centuries before Sacred Scripture was complied into a single book. So when he said not to add or subtract from “this book”, he specifically meant the Book of Revelation. Catholics have neither added to nor taken away any of the text of the Book of Revelation, so we are not guilty of failing to heed the warning therein. Therefore, in using this passage from Revelation to defend Sola Scriptura, you are 1) presuming that John envisioned that Sacred Scripture would be compiled along with Revelation in a single book, and 2) that his warning was a general statement about the formulation of doctrine rather than simply telling people not to alter the words that he set down.

Secondly, Sola Scriptura could, indeed, be stated more emphatically. For example, John (or anyone else who was inspired by God to write Sacred Scripture) could have written something like, “The Lord has made it known that his revelation is to solely be found within Sacred Scripture.” But he didn’t write this, nor did anyone else in the Bible.

So far in this thread you are doing exactly what I have witnessed time and time again. In order to make a case for Sola Scriptura you cite some Bible passages that don’t actually teach this principle, and can only be made to sound like they might be teaching it if one first makes all kinds of extrapolations beyond what the text actually says.

 

[TraditonRules]

First of all, John wrote Revelation centuries before Sacred Scripture was complied into a single book. So when he said not to add or subtract from “this book”, he specifically meant the Book of Revelation. Catholics have neither added to nor taken away any of the text of the Book of Revelation, so we are not guilty of failing to heed the warning therein. Therefore, in using this passage from Revelation to defend Sola Scriptura, you are 1) presuming that John envisioned that Sacred Scripture would be compiled along with Revelation in a single book, and 2) that his warning was a general statement about the formulation of doctrine rather than simply telling people not to alter the words that he set down.

Secondly, Sola Scriptura could, indeed, be stated more emphatically. For example, John (or anyone else who was inspired by God to write Sacred Scripture) could have written something like, “The Lord has made it known that his revelation is to solely be found within Sacred Scripture.” But he didn’t write this, nor did anyone else in the Bible.

So far in this thread you are doing exactly what I have witnessed time and time again. In order to make a case for Sola Scriptura you cite some Bible passages that don’t actually teach this principle, and can only be made to sound like they might be teaching it if one first makes all kinds of extrapolations beyond what the text actually says.

We can both make that claim, as evidence that purgatory is not explicit in the bible. When it helps your cause you say trust the bible, when the bible does not help your cause you say trust tradition.

 

[in_servitude]

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written.

This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1)

. Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.

But the keys - and the whole “bind/loose” comment was specific to Peter and not the apostles in general. I take it from your comment that the sole purpose of giving Peter the keys was so that he would ensure that scripture was written.

 

[inkaneer]

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written.

This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1)

. Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.

You ignore the fact that what we call scripture was the result of men deciding what was inspired and what was not. Therefore this canon of scripture which you covet above an authoritative church is really a dreaded tradition of man. There is no inspired table of contents. Some men got together and decided the gospel of Matthew was inspired but the gospel of Thomas wasn’t. The gospel of Luke was inspired but the gospel of Peter wasn’t. If, as you claim, these men had no authority to do this then how can you hold onto their decision as to what is inspired? Can you prove the Epistle to Philomen is inspired? If you can’t then how can you make the claim that it is? It would be nice if the Bible dropped out of heaven, leather bound, gilt edged, on fine parchment, in the King’s English with the words of Jesus in red ink. But it didn’t. The truth of the matter is you place your trust in a book, the contents of which was the decision of the Church in the late fourth century while we Catholics place our trust in the Church that made the decisions on the contents of the book. How can the book be greater than the Church that was responsible for it?

 

[TraditonRules]

You ignore the fact that what we call scripture was the result of men deciding what was inspired and what was not. Therefore this canon of scripture which you covet above an authoritative church is really a dreaded tradition of man. There is no inspired table of contents. Some men got together and decided the gospel of Matthew was inspired but the gospel of Thomas wasn’t. The gospel of Luke was inspired but the gospel of Peter wasn’t. If, as you claim, these men had no authority to do this then how can you hold onto their decision as to what is inspired? Can you prove the Epistle to Philomen is inspired? If you can’t then how can you make the claim that it is? It would be nice if the Bible dropped out of heaven, leather bound, gilt edged, on fine parchment, in the King’s English with the words of Jesus in red ink. But it didn’t. The truth of the matter is you place your trust in a book, the contents of which was the decision of the Church in the late fourth century while we Catholics place our trust in the Church that made the decisions on the contents of the book. How can the book be greater than the Church that was responsible for it?

I disagree with your first sentence and thus the remaining premise. The Bible was God inspired not man inspired.