Is there any problem with Sola Scriptura?

[Abu]

Bogeydogg #5
What Luther actually taught (which many denoms, who shall remain nameless, refuse to believe) is that in questions of doctrine the Bible is authoritative over the Church.
Christ did not create a Bible He created a Church. Now Lutherans say we know this because of the Bible and Catholics say we know the Bible is authoritative because of the Church.

What sense does it make to say that for “doctrine the Bible is authoritative over the Church” – yet “Lutherans know because of the Bible” that “Christ did not create a Bible He created a Church”?

Of course Christ established His Church, which defined what books are the inspired Word of God.
All 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).

To whom else did Jesus give that supreme authority? The NT was written within a few decades of Christ’s death by Catholics, and His Church told us what books form the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God and carefully copied them for 1500 years so they would be available for all. The books were declared, no more no less, by the Church, and no one else has any authority to add or subtract any.

 

[po18guy]

Maybe so and maybe not. Moses and Christ said the bible is final authority

Huh? They said that scripture cannot be broken, but Christ made His Church the final authority. All disputes are to be taken to the Church (Matthew 18:15-18). If inanimate writing, no matter Who inspired it, is thought to be an authority, then truth is individual. That is relativism. To combat this, even 2,000 years ago, Paul wrote that the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Paul wrote that Timothy was the authority in that local Church (1 Timothy 4:12-14), not scripture - there was no NT scripture at that time! Paul and Timothy were teaching the Gospel orally according with the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[TraditonRules]

Huh? They said that scripture cannot be broken, but Christ made His Church the final authority. All disputes are to be taken to the Church (Matthew 18:15-18). If inanimate writing, no matter Who inspired it, is thought to be an authority, then truth is individual. That is relativism. To combat this, even 2,000 years ago, Paul wrote that the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Paul wrote that Timothy was the authority in that local Church (1 Timothy 4:12-14), not scripture - there was no NT scripture at that time! Paul and Timothy were teaching the Gospel orally according with the Apostolic Tradition.

Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God.

When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).

All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.

 

[po18guy]

Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God.

When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).

All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.

Do not conflate the purpose of the OT with that of the NT. The OT points to Jesus, and that is why it had to be understood. Yet, no one understood it until Jesus opened their minds to understand.

Jesus did not write a single thing that is recorded. Neither did He command the writing of a single word. He sent Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, to teach orally. To demand written proof (bible alone) means that the Church may have failed within the first century, and we cannot be sure that Christianity is true. The bible did not exist as a stand-alone until the late 4th century! With such a huge time gap, why do you even trust the bible?

The Bereans, you say. Let’s look a little closer at them. They were stuck in the OT, waiting for the Messiah to be revealed - even though everything that pointed to Jesus was in those very same OT scriptures! Only Paul’s oral paradosis revealed to them that Jesus was the Messiah. The Bereans would never have known that Jesus of Nazareth was the waited-for Messiah - Paul had to teach them orally. Only after receiving Paul’s teaching did they run back to the OT before realizing it was true. They had been staring at it their entire lives without knowing. Only Paul’s living word, and not any written word, revealed Jesus to them.

Read the prologue to Luke. Theophilus was already trained in the Gospel before a single letter of the Gospel was even written. How can that be possible? Luke corrected NONE of the teaching that Theolphilus had received - only confirmed it in writing.

We err when we become stuck in the “written proof” rut.

 

[Abu]

TraditonRules #23
God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.

The Holy Spirit speaks through the Catholic Church, in dogma and doctrine defined by the Magisterium – the pope and in papally approved Ecumenical Councils, in the Bible as interpreted by His Church, and in Her Tradition.

The dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was declared by Pope Pius XI in 1950, by the living Magisterium “to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and, as it were, by implication.” (Humani Generis, 21).

St Paul warns against the traditions of men in 2 Thess 15: “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.”

The Church has declared that “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.” [Vatican II, *Dei Verbum, 10].

 

[inkaneer]

What Luther actually taught (which many denoms, who shall remain nameless, refuse to believe) is that in questions of doctrine the Bible is authoritative over the Church. Obviously Rome disagreed and continues to disagree to this day.

God Bless

And for good reason. It is unscriptural. Scripture says it is the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. Scripture never makes that claim for itself. Second the church determined what was scripture so the church exercised its authority over scripture not vice versa.

 

[inkaneer]

Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God. .

It is important but not exclusive. Nobody said it was not important.

When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29)…

No, He rebuked them for not doing as they told others to do. Lots of people did not understand the scriptures. The Pharisees were probably the ones who understood it best.

All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.

Clear as mud. If His revelation was to be preserved in scripture then why didn’t He leave us an inspired table of contents so we would know what was scripture. Instead we had to determine it ourselves. So the scriptures we have are actually based on Tradition or what you call “extrabiblical” tradition.

 

[po18guy]

All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.

Not so fast there!

Please explain the names and actions of Jannes and Jambres, OT characters who are not named in the OT, but are in the NT.

As well, please explain about Saint Michael the archangel disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. That’s not in the OT either, but it is in the NT.

 

[TraditonRules]

And for good reason. It is unscriptural. Scripture says it is the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. Scripture never makes that claim for itself. Second the church determined what was scripture so the church exercised its authority over scripture not vice versa.

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.

 

[EricFilmer]

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.

Paul is not saying that Scripture equips the believer for every good work. Here’s why…

Let us start off with the full passage that your idea is drawn from:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2Timothy 3:16, RSV).

The usual argument goes like this: if “all Scripture” makes a person “complete” and “equipped for every good work” then a Christian need not turn to anything else (such as Sacred Tradition). Therefore, believing in Sacred Tradition puts someone in opposition to what Paul wrote in 2Timothy 3:16.

But is this a correct interpretation of 2Timothy 3:16? No. Objectively speaking, it is impossible for this passage from Paul’s letter to support Sola Scriptura. Consider that…

1) Paul does not say “only” Scripture.

2) Also in 2Timothy (this time from 2:21-26) Paul states that purifying oneself from “what is ignoble” makes one “ready for any good work.” So, like in 2Timothy 3:16, Paul is telling Timothy how a person is equipped, or ready, for good works. But when Paul describes (in 2Timothy 2:21-26) how a person is purified from being ignoble, he does not mention the use of Scripture. Instead he talks about shunning youthful passions, aiming at righteousness, faith, love and peace, avoiding senseless controversies, not being quarrelsome, being kind and gentle, etc.

3) In 2Corinthians 9:8, Paul states, “And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.” So, like in 2Timothy 3:16, Paul writes about what provides for “every good work.” But in this passage from 2Corinthians, Paul does not mention Scripture, but instead points out that the blessings of God are what provide for every good work. Obviously God can bestow his blessings on us independent from Scripture, can he not?

In light of all this, what Paul must be saying in 2Timothy 3:16 is that what “equips us for every good work” is teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, for which all Scripture is profitable. And, in the context of everything Paul wrote, many other things aside from Scripture are profitable for this as well, such as acquiring the blessings of God and refraining from what is ignoble. By considering all this biblical evidence, Paul cannot truly be teaching people that the Bible is the only source of authoritative Christian teaching, and therefore Paul does not teach Sola Scriptura in 2Timothy 3:16.

 

[EricFilmer]

Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God.

When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).

All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.

 

[bogeydogg]

I wholly agree in the importance on tradition, as did Luther, but no one is arguing that tradition is God Breathed.

As such when one is confounded by tradition and what seems to be contradictory the place to turn is the Church and the Scripture.

Thus the Church (Word and Sacrament), the Scripture and Tradition are the means God has given us to protect us from error. Luther’s complaint with Rome was that he felt Rome had strayed from her own tradition.

I do not know that he was right about this, that is part of the reason I am taking RCIA in the fall. I meant to this last fall but grew deathly ill and God, by His grace saw me through and gave me a wonderful surgeon who has, by God’s providential hand, healed me. So I go forward in my search.

In the meantime I will defend the Lutheran faith, but I will do all in my power to not slander the RCC even if I disagree with/misunderstand some of her teachings, and I speak strongly against those who do slander her.

However 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.

God Bless.

 

[EricFilmer]

Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God.

When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).

All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.

1) According to the majority of Jewish and Christian Scripture scholars (including Protestant ones), the Book of Genesis was not put into writing until some time after the Exodus event. Therefore, for the first several centuries, God’s revelation was passed down from generation to generation by way of oral Tradition, not Scripture. Obviously, God did not “intend from the very beginning that his revelation be preserved in Scripture” for the simple fact that Scripture has not been around since the beginning. If God thought otherwise, why didn’t he instruct Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, or Jacob/Israel to record Scripture?

2) If God intended people to follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, why didn’t he simply have it written in the Bible? The Holy Spirit inspired a large number of people over an enormous span of time to write and compile the Bible, and yet nowhere does the Bible clearly state the principle of Sola Scriptura. There are thousands of verses in the Bible, and God could have easily had one set forth the instruction that his revelation would be found in Scripture alone, but he didn’t. If Sola Scriptura is, indeed, a valid doctrine, why does it take so much extrapolations outside of the plain words of the text to formulate it?

3) According to Judaism, the Catholic Church, all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches, God’s revelation is found in both Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which the Orthodox call Holy Tradition and the Jews call the Oral Torah). Using God’s covenant with Abraham as a starting point for Judaism, we are talking about a collective four-thousand year history of Jews and Christians who read the same Scriptures that you did and never came to the conclusion that (as you say) it was “clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.” So if the Bible does, indeed, teach Sola Scriptura, how did literally billions of Scripture-reading people manage to miss such a vital principle for four millenia?

4) Why would someone who opposes the idea that God’s revelation is found in extra-biblical Tradition chose to have the CAF name of TraditionRules?

 

[TraditonRules]

---

1) According to the majority of Jewish and Christian Scripture scholars (including Protestant ones), the Book of Genesis was not put into writing until some time after the Exodus event. Therefore, for the first several centuries, God’s revelation was passed down from generation to generation by way of oral Tradition, not Scripture. Obviously, God did not “intend from the very beginning that his revelation be preserved in Scripture” for the simple fact that Scripture has not been around since the beginning. If God thought otherwise, why didn’t he instruct Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, or Jacob/Israel to record Scripture?

2) If God intended people to follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, why didn’t he simply have it written in the Bible? The Holy Spirit inspired a large number of people over an enormous span of time to write and compile the Bible, and yet nowhere does the Bible clearly state the principle of Sola Scriptura. There are thousands of verses in the Bible, and God could have easily had one set forth the instruction that his revelation would be found in Scripture alone, but he didn’t. If Sola Scriptura is, indeed, a valid doctrine, why does it take so much extrapolations outside of the plain words of the text to formulate it?

3) According to Judaism, the Catholic Church, all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches, God’s revelation is found in both Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which the Orthodox call Holy Tradition and the Jews call the Oral Torah). Using God’s covenant with Abraham as a starting point for Judaism, we are talking about a collective four-thousand year history of Jews and Christians who read the same Scriptures that you did and never came to the conclusion that (as you say) it was “clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition.” So if the Bible does, indeed, teach Sola Scriptura, how did literally billions of Scripture-reading people manage to miss such a vital principle for four millenia?

4) Why would someone who opposes the idea that God’s revelation is found in extra-biblical Tradition chose to have the CAF name of TraditionRules?

In regards to point B2, it has been addressed with scripture several times. Read the previous posts…

Traditon not Tradition.

 

[EricFilmer]

---

In regards to point B2, it has been addressed with scripture several times. Read the previous posts…

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.

Traditon not Tradition.

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

 

[Cathhsmom]

Funny that you should make this post. My daughter has this as her topic paper for this week in her Freshman Theology class.

 

[pablope]

just curious.

Here is a real life story of a missionary couple who tried to apply Sola Scripture…and their experience is recounted here…titled…

How I solved the Catholic problem…freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

There were other unfortunate parallels with evangelicalism in America. Poor people went to poor churches; the middle-class and wealthy attended more upscale churches which attracted people from their particular level of society. Only in one large, downtown Evangelical church did we ever see rich and poor in fairly equal numbers, though most of the poor people sat in the balcony, not down front where the more affluent folks sat. I had never, until then, realized how Protestant churches are almost always separated by class. I was unsettled to realize that I had never attended a church with poor people. I had always looked for a church with people “like me.” Where was the One Church of Jesus Christ which embraced rich and poor alike? For some reason, I had expected to find it in Guatemala. I didn’t.
In Guatemala there are the Ladinos, predominately European of Spanish descent. They make up the ruling class. The underclass, for the most part, are pure Mayan Indian. There were Ladino churches and Indian churches. If you saw a woman in a Ladino (upper class) church dressed in native clothing, it was a good bet she was someone’s maid. This stratification of Evangelical churches had never bothered me before. In fact, I had never really considered it. But now my conscience was pricking me. I couldn’t stop thinking about it. Evangelicalism was not promoting harmony between the races and classes but, rather, was structured so as to reinforce these social and cultural separation between believers. What bothered me most was that this attitude was very American.

Segregation was only one of the problems I observed with the imported evangelicalism of Guatemala. A bigger problem is the disease of dissension, which is endemic to protestantism. When the Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, and the other well-meaning missionaries came to Guatemala, they brought with them all the doctrinal spats that American churches split over. Guatemalan churches, like their American counterparts, are constantly in a state of strife and doctrinal turmoil, splitting into new churches. New denominations spring up in Guatemala at a breathtaking rate. Pastors, (often self-proclaimed, with little or no education) found new churches, taking large portions of their former congregations with them.

I asked myself where was the “one body, one faith, and one baptism” St. Paul spoke about so passionately? I began to fear that the answer could not be what American missionaries were peddling, at least it couldn’t be the whole answer.

One day we drove through a small village where I counted three Pentecostal churches on one block. Before the arrival of protestantism, this town was united in its Catholicism. The Catholic parish used to be the center of the community, but now there were multitudes of competing Protestant churches, each promoting its particular brand of evangelicalism: Church of Christ, Presbyterian, non-denominational, Assemblies of God, Mennonite Brethren, and Baptists of every conceivable stripe were all there, scratching around for converts, and reminding their flocks that all the other groups were wrong (especially, of course, the Catholics).

I thought about this choose-your-own-church syndrome constantly. While all of us missionaries from these various denominations proclaimed the purity of our gospel, the truth was, there was no way for any of us to know for sure which of us had it “most right.”

This realization was earth-shaking. I saw that evangelicalism had become, by its “Bible alone” principle, a religion of the literate elite. As a missionary taking the gospel to illiterate people, I realized I had to be absolutely sure, before God, that what I was telling them was, in fact, the Christian Faith, free from error. It had to be 100 percent Truth with a capital T. The problem was, using the “Bible alone” principle I had been taught, I had no way to be absolutely sure.

I witnessed among Guatemalan Evangelicals a cacophony of conflicting teachings. Pentecostal television preachers railed against the devil and cast out demons right and left. Fundamentalist non-Pentecostal preachers were just as busy railing against the Pentecostals for speaking in tongues, which was, they warned, a sure sign that they were in cahoots with the devil.

Some preachers were teaching a “health and wealth gospel” in one of the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nations. Many preached American-style democracy as the “biblical” government God wanted to see in Guatemala. Baptists preached that infant baptism didn’t count and that those who practice it aren’t “true Christians.” Lutheran missionaries were busy baptizing babies. Quakers told people they didn’t need any outward symbols of Christianity.

**And finally, the Protestant notion of sola scriptura (the Bible alone) fell apart each time I tried to test it. I began to see that Evangelicalism’s insistence on going by the Bible alone led continually into division and problems. Worse yet, claiming to go by the Bible alone didn’t really provide any certitude of belief for believers. **

 

[pablope]

Maybe so and maybe not. Moses and Christ said the bible is final authority

Could you provide the chapter and verse?

 

[pablope]

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.

Actully, you miss verse 14 of 2tim3…which it states… 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

This verse speaks of oral instruction…and not Bible alone…it is both oral instruction and guidance, coupled with Scripture, that makes a man of God whole…not just Bible alone.

 

[po18guy]

Matthew 7:15-20
King James Version (KJV)
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

What began as a second denomination in 1517 has blossomed into 30,000+. Simply put, the fruits of sola scriptura are division.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.