Is there any problem with Sola Scriptura?

[TraditonRules]

Different people define Sola Scriptura in different ways. I have asked you at least twice to give us your own definition of Sola Scriptura, and as far as I can tell, you have not yet done so. Up until now I have had to base my responses on what I have found to be a general understanding of the term.

Therefore, instead of continuing to presume we know what your definition of Sola Scriptura is, why don’t you go ahead and clearly state it in this thread. If you don’t, how can you expect us to properly discuss whether or not it is implied in Scripture?

Sola is simply a reference that the bible is final authority of infallibility…such as this scripture to back the claim.

Christ and the apostles viewed Scripture, and Scripture alone, as the unerring word of God. That Jesus held Scripture in the highest regard is evident from statements such as these: “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35);

“Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything has been accomplished” (Matt. 5:18); “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19).

 

[in_servitude]

Sola is simply a reference that the bible is final authority of infallibility…such as this scripture to back the claim.

…

If we say that the bible is the final authority of infallibility, then what happens when two honest and truth seeking people read the same scripture and come away with remarkably different points of view? I think this happens all the time, yet the scriptures are the final infallible authority.

 

[TraditonRules]

If we say that the bible is the final authority of infallibility, then what happens when two honest and truth seeking people read the same scripture and come away with remarkably different points of view? I think this happens all the time, yet the scriptures are the final infallible authority.

Concede the point.

But oral tradition has the same problem when generation after generation the original intent is misunderstood. I mean how many countless examples can we give when oral instruction when passed to others gets totally turned upside down.

Christ said trust scripture, yet you believe the bible left out the most critical essentials of Catholicism and instead left it up to oral communication. That in and of itself seems illogical.

 

[Abu]

TraditonRules #102
Christ said trust scripture

This is a denial of Christ who wrote nothing and used quotes from the OT, as He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

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

1. Never did Jesus command any of His Apostles to write anything, but to go and teach under the Primacy of St Peter.
2. It is only through His Church that TraditionRules can have the Sacred Scriptures to mangle or to lead him to Christ’s Church.
3. The result of private interpretation like his own has been tens of thousands of differing and confused “interpretations” among those outside of His Church.

Of course Christ established His Church, which defined what books are the inspired Word of God, no more nor less. Only She has the authority to interpret what She has given the world.

 

[in_servitude]

Concede the point.

Thanks.

But oral tradition has the same problem when generation after generation the original intent is misunderstood. I mean how many countless examples can we give when oral instruction when passed to others gets totally turned upside down.

Christ said trust scripture, yet you believe the bible left out the most critical essentials of Catholicism and instead left it up to oral communication. That in and of itself seems illogical.

Well, I think the most critical essentials of Catholicism is the Eucharist, and I think that is a combination of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Then there is the honor we give Mary which is, as you point out, almost completely guided by Sacred Tradition.

I come from the point of view that Christ has given us a leader that He guides. But, the leader can’t do whatever he wants - he is bound by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Yet, the question of authority is a primary factor for a person choosing to be Catholic or Protestant (perhaps - but my observation anyway).

 

[perro_sarnoso]

just curious.

Yes,

It excludes Sacred Tradition and Divine revelation as well as the Magestirium of the Catholic church instituted by Jesus Christ Himself after His ascension into heaven.

 

[TraditonRules]

Thanks.

Well, I think the most critical essentials of Catholicism is the Eucharist, and I think that is a combination of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Then there is the honor we give Mary which is, as you point out, almost completely guided by Sacred Tradition.

I come from the point of view that Christ has given us a leader that He guides. But, the leader can’t do whatever he wants - he is bound by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Yet, the question of authority is a primary factor for a person choosing to be Catholic or Protestant (perhaps - but my observation anyway).

Your final sentence we agree.

My opinion basically is that both sides (Catholics/Protestants) have compelling arguments as to what is the final authority.

 

[in_servitude]

Your final sentence we agree.

My opinion basically is that both sides (Catholics/Protestants) have compelling arguments as to what is the final authority.

We will only know once the veil is lifted for certain, but I do hope that I do not learn that I have been working against something Jesus created for us. Perhaps we’ll have a chance to catch up on this “someday” on the other side. Until then, we’ll continue our walk in exile.

 

[Abu]

The failure to understand Christ, His Church, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium is highlighted in Sacred Scripture, and solved only by Christ’s Catholic Church:
St Paul’s epistles have “some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” [2Pet 3:16]

“…no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man but, but holy men of God spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” [2Pet 1: 20-21].

The Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah was asked by Philip who had been moved by the Holy Spirit – “Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, ‘How can I unless some man show me?’ And he asked Philip to come and sit with him.” [Acts 8:30-31].

 

[EricFilmer]

Sola is simply a reference that the bible is final authority of infallibility such as this scripture to back the claim.

Christ and the apostles viewed Scripture, and Scripture alone, as the unerring word of God.

Thank you for the definition.

In light of this, please answer the following questions:

1) Where in the Bible does it say that Scripture alone is the final authority? Please don’t waste your time and mine by bringing up verses that say that Scripture is important. I fully agree that Scripture is important, is God’s revelation, teaches matters of faith and morals without error, etc. The key words here are “alone” and “final.”

2) The Word of God is also Jesus. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14, RSV). Therefore, clearly explain to me how “Scripture alone is the unerring Word of God” when Jesus can exist apart from Scripture. I admit that Jesus abides in Scripture, but obviously he is not restricted to it.

3) Not only is Jesus the Word of God, but he is also the head of the Church (for example, see Eph 5:23). If the Word of God is the head of the Church, how is it that Scripture has authority over the Church?

4) Here is something I have brought up before, but you have chosen not to address it. Therefore, I directly challenge you to answer this question: Was the Book of Genesis God’s revelation during the centuries prior to it being put into written form?

5) The Apostles initially taught the gospel in an oral way several years before any of the gospels were written. For example, in Acts 10:34-43 Peter delivers a speech which is a brief version of the gospel (it is believed by Scripture scholars that Mark eventually used this speech as the outline for his own gospel). Was the gospel itself considered God’s revelation prior to it being recorded as Scripture?

6) If Paul was an adherent to Sola Scriptura, why would he make the below statements?

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or by mouth or by letter.” (2Thess 2:15, RSV)
(Something taught “by mouth” is not, by definition, Scripture)

"What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you." (Philippians 4:9)
(Obviously St. Paul cannot be referring to Scripture when he says to learn from what is “seen in him”)

"…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1Timothy 3:15, RSV).
(Wouldn’t an adherent of Sola Scriptura have stated that Scripture, rather that the Church, was the pillar and bulwark of the truth?)

7) Can you quote one Christian prior to A.D. 1500 who stated that Scripture alone is the final authority? You have stated in this thread that Sola Scriptura is implied in the Bible. If that is so then I am interested in seeing whether or not someone prior to the Protestant Reformation ever caught that implication. And, as I mentioned in #1, please don’t waste my time and yours by quoting people saying that Scripture is important, that it is inerrant, that it is God’s revelation, etc. Once again, the key words here are “alone” and “final.”

 

[EricFilmer]

That Jesus held Scripture in the highest regard is evident from statements such as these: “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35)

Please clearly explain to me how the statement, “The Scriptures cannot be broken” suddenly means that Scripture alone is the final authority. I believe that the Scriptures cannot be broken, but I also believe that Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition and not a valid doctrine. Do these two beliefs of mine somehow contradict one another? If so, then please clearly explain why.

“Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything has been accomplished” (Matt. 5:18); “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17)

Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19).

Not quite. First, here is a fuller citation from Matthew:

[17] “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20)

This passage clearly makes a distinction between what the scribes and Pharisees were doing, and what Jesus expected of his followers. When we examine this passage in the context of the entire Gospel of Matthew (and the other gospels for that matter), we see that the scribes and Pharisees were obedient to Scripture. The problem was that they often interpreted Scripture in ways that were contrary to the will of God, and taught other people to follow their faulty interpretations. Moreover, many of them felt that doing external religious rituals caused them to be considered holy in the eyes of God (i.e., they felt that they could merit their own righteousness rather than relying upon grace). Therefore, they failed to achieve true righteousness. Jesus challenged his followers to follow God’s commandments in accordance with God’s will, and to consider their inner spiritual nature as more important than outward religious practices. In this way, they would be obedient to God’s will, but in a manner exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

But even if I went with your interpretation that obedience to Scripture is the measure of ones greatness in heaven, this still does not mean that Scripture alone is the final authority.

What I have stated here is also applicable to your quote about the Law from the Gospel of Luke.

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

Clearly explain to me why the phrase “words” is supposed to exclusively mean “Scripture”. A word is can be both written and spoken, and therefore this can refer to both Scripture and Tradition.

 

[po18guy]

This tends to become a circle.

Not for Catholics!

Purgatory may very well be present in the bible in an implied (not explicit) manner. Many Catholics site implied purgatory scriptures, I get that but its not explicit by any stretch of the imagination. You agree to that???

Sure! I can’t remember if you are trinitarian or not. The trinity is not explicit. Jesus never said, explicitly, that He was the Son of God. Be careful, as explicitness reduces our reliance on faith.

Just the same I have repeated one after another in scripture supporting Sola in an implied (not explicit) manner.

Since Jesus’ Church was founded with zero NT scripture (and the OT scrolls were kept in the Temple), the bible as foundation cannot represent Christ’s True Church. He sent Apostles, so His True Church must be Apostolic. That much, the equally old Eastern Orthodox Church will agree with.

Actually, the realization that Christ’s Church is Apostolic lead a pentecostal preacher and 54 of his congregation to convert! Deacon Alex Jones.

 

[inkaneer]

If you can provide explicit scripture on purgatory I will accept your answer as credible, likely though you have wasted my time.

Iknew you were biblicaly ignorant. I osted the reference to purgatory n My post #84 wherein I wrote:

“Those in purgatory are saved and do go to heaven. Scripture tells you this so I am somewhat surprised that you, being a sola scripturist, don’t know that. Of course, Purgatory is one of those things that did not fit early protestant ideas so they simply denied it and you are the recipient of their error. But scripture still attests to the saved man who on the day of judgement goes through a purification by fire. That is a pretty explicit depiction of purgatory. In fact, purgatory is more explicit in the Bible than the concept of the Trinity that Christians have. Christians understand the Trinity in terms of person and essence and substance. These are extra biblical concepts that come to us from Greek philosophy but were used by the Church to define the Godhead. Nowhere in scripture or even Jewish philosophical thought are these concepts found.”

Notice the part I emboldened. Now lets go to the scripture passage itself, shall we? It is found in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. Here it is in the RSV:

"11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." And here in the KJV:

"11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; **
13Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.**

Now you may say this is not speaking of purgatory or this is not explicit enough. BUT, if you do claim that then you tell us where in any protestant theology that a saved man goes through a fire. The only fire in protestant theology is hell fire and saved people do not experience it. But here a saved man goes through a fire where his works are tested and the ones that do not pass muster are burned away. The imagery is an exact description of purgatory.

So where is this in protestant theology where people who are saved go through a test of fire??? I have asked this of protestants time ands time again and no one has been able to give me an answer. Maybe you can???

 

[exnihilo]

Christ and the apostles viewed Scripture, and Scripture alone, as the unerring word of God.

Actually Christ is the Word of God. Christ and the Apostles viewed Christ as the unerring Word of God. The Apostles experienced and learned from a much more complete Word of God. The Bible is not equal to God but Christ is. The Apostles had a much greater authority than the written Word. The Word Incarnate did not contradict Scripture. But it revealed it and did so fully. So in your thinking on this subject you are starting out with an error. If the Apostles had direct experience with the full Word of God is it not reasonable to think there is much more they understood than is contained in the words of Scripture?

 

[po18guy]

Actually Christ is the Word of God. Christ and the Apostles viewed Christ as the unerring Word of God. The Apostles experienced and learned from a much more complete Word of God. The Bible is not equal to God but Christ is. The Apostles had a much greater authority than the written Word. The Word Incarnate did not contradict Scripture. But it revealed it and did so fully. So in your thinking on this subject you are starting out with an error. If the Apostles had direct experience with the full Word of God is it not reasonable to think there is much more they understood than is contained in the words of Scripture?

As we know from John, the Word was made flesh, and not papyrus and ink. The problem with assigning scripture its rightful place is that it appears to have been demoted in the eyes of “sola scripturists.” Yet, for 1,500 years, no one thought that anything other than the Church, as scripture teaches, was the final authority (on earth). All of this “supreme authority” that I hear regarding sacred scripture strikes me as being uncomfortably close to idolatry.

 

[bogeydogg]

Actually Christ is the Word of God. Christ and the Apostles viewed Christ as the unerring Word of God. The Apostles experienced and learned from a much more complete Word of God. The Bible is not equal to God but Christ is. The Apostles had a much greater authority than the written Word. The Word Incarnate did not contradict Scripture. But it revealed it and did so fully. So in your thinking on this subject you are starting out with an error. If the Apostles had direct experience with the full Word of God is it not reasonable to think there is much more they understood than is contained in the words of Scripture?

And so you have justified the RCC understanding that the Apostolic witness and the tradition they handed to the Bishops of the Churches they founded should be understood as the foundation of the Christian Church and not just Scripture Alone.

No one teaches Sola Scriptura even if they confess. That has been my running them on here. You can argue about purgatory and the trinity and blah blah blah but no one actually teaches Sola Scriptura.

A Lutheran Preacher will say “Sola Gratia Sola Fide Sola Christus and we know this by Sola Scriptura. That is what Dr Luther taught!” Well what has he done? He’s jusr introduce tradition to Sola Scriptura.

A Reformed preacher may quote Luther or Calvin and the whole lot of protestant, excluding the ecstatics who are a whole other subject, preacher/teachers will talk about Thomas and Augustine and C S Lewis and Jonathan Edwards and J I Packer to enforce their Scriptural teaching, but this tradition and Scripture being taught together. The two cannot be separated.

The difference is Rome admits and protestants use tradition and pretend they don’t, but that is protestant hypocrisy and one frankly that if they would just admit to I think undo a lot of the hard feeling between Rome and the rest because we are not so far apart as some like to think/wish.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

As we know from John, the Word was made flesh, and not papyrus and ink. The problem with assigning scripture its rightful place is that it appears to have been demoted in the eyes of “sola scripturists.” Yet, for 1,500 years, no one thought that anything other than the Church, as scripture teaches, was the final authority (on earth). All of this “supreme authority” that I hear regarding sacred scripture strikes me as being uncomfortably close to idolatry.

No one thinks that still as my previous post points out.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

If you can provide explicit scripture on purgatory I will accept your answer as credible, likely though you have wasted my time.

Nope! First answer my question:

If it is a man-made ideology as you believe,please tell me when,where and WHO invented this false idealogy? Where are the early church historical records clearly showing people protesting this man-made idea?

 

[po18guy]

No one thinks that still as my previous post points out.

God Bless

Consider these introductory comments from “The Open Bible” copyright 1975, by Thomas Nelson Publishers (modern KJV translation):

The bible…

1. “discovers and convicts us of sin.”
2. “helps cleanse us from the pollutions of sin.”
3. “imparts strength.”
4. “instructs us in what we are to do.”
5. “provides us with a sword for victory over sin.”
6. “makes our lives fruitful.”
7. “gives us power to pray.”

Look at the verbs used. Human, arguably Divine traits, each one. What I see here is conflation of scripture with its Author. This is only one of the dangers of making an inanimate object, which needs interpretation, a “sole” anything.

 

[onlyvoice]

Can anyone define Tradition for me please?