Leaving tradition out of the discussion, how do non-Catholics make sense of this apparent inconsistency?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Sola scriptura I’m told, is a practice, rule or teaching claiming that the God breathed inspired word, as per 2 Timothy 3, contains the only knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, and yet sola scriptura is not expressly set down anywhere in sacred scripture, which, logically speaking, suggests that sola scriptura itself is not necessary for salvation and holiness. Where in the God breathed inspired word is sola scriptura expressly set down, and if it isn’t then how are we to make sense of this apparent inconsistency?

In pursuit of an answer to where SS, (which tells us that scripture contains the only knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness) - expressly set down, we must restrict ourselves to the holy Bible, which tells us that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I believe, without doubt, that all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, but I do not find, in scripture where scripture alone tells me that scripture alone is the only thing that is God-breathed, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…containing the only knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. What I do find in scripture alone is scripture telling us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, forever guided by the Paraclete into all truth, which suggests that the church, as well as all scripture, is inspired by God and therefore God-breathed, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Your thoughts?
 
Rightlydivide said:
equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura
Click to expand...
If this article is the best the SS crowd can do for defence…well…it’s not helpful.

For starters, it misrepresents what is actually Catholic teaching. Also, it treats the NT as if it were already a canon in Apostolic times. Given that the Church (that would be the Catholic Church) decided which of the books of Scripture were inspired, it seems interesting that the term “God-breathed” would hold so much sway…because God obviously used the Church to breath.

And where was it that St. Paul spoke against Sola Scriptura?
 
uxordepp said:
And where was it that St. Paul spoke against Sola Scriptura?
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of 1 Tim 3:15? “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

That’s always a fun one to trot out when talking about sola scriptura with Fundamentalists. Normally when asked “What is the foundation of the truth,” a Fundamentalist will answer “the Bible” without thinking. Then you ask them to open their Bible and read 1 Tim 3:15.
 
meltzerboy said:
Fascinating material! I can’t wait to hear the Catholic response. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Hey Meltz, do we find in scripture, scripture telling us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, (1 tim. 3) - forever (John 14:16) - guided by the Paraclete into all truth, (John 16:13) - which suggests that the church, (as well as all scripture) - is inspired by God and therefore God-breathed, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work?
 
2 Timothy 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Really, if I know the scripture can make me wise into salvation, why would I ask for something else.

I love how catholics jump down to verse 16 and don’t read verse 15 about scripture and salvation.

I guess I can ask:
Where in scripture does is say the church is the “only” pilar in truth?
Where does the word church (body of believers) = (magesterium)?

These hypothetical questions are really suppose to make me think?

"Oh maybe if the word only is not in there, there must be another, and I guess it is the church. And Rome must be that church cause peter went to Rome, etc… "
 
Your understanding is not the correct interpretation of Sola Scriptura. Luther (who coined the phrase) meant for it to mean that Scripture is the Ultimate Source of Truth. It is inspired by God, however it was never meant to thorugh out tradition completely. What he intended was that traditions that contradicted scripture or inspired corruption were to be discarded. Not all tradition was to be throw out, not were the Early Church father’s writings to be throw out. Unfortunatly many denominations have essentially misinterpreted this to mean Scripture only. A Scripture only take would by it’s nature have th throw out all creeds, sermons, and writings as they are not in Scripture. This is not and was never the intent of Sola Scriptura.
 
Rightlydivide said:
equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura
Click to expand...
Sorry,but both authors information is riddled with errors.

The following is from the link:

Sola Scriptura: First Century Christians Had Scripture and Living Apostles
Kreeft’s argument that the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the church to teach them, overlooks several basic facts. First, the essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6).
Click to expand...
What facts? How does the OT support or prove Sola Scriptura? Where do ANY of the Apostles ever mention or teach Sola Scriptura? Where and when was the OT used and taught as Sola Scriptura? Second, not all Jews adhered to the same books prior to Jesus,so EXACTLY what books are in support of sola scriptura?
Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available
Click to expand...
.

Yeah…and? Where does the NT teach that with the death of the last Apostle,the written word ALONE is THE only infallible source for faith and morals?
And it was — in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament. Third, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that there was apostolic succession (see Part Four, next issue). The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Wrong! Countless ECF’s fathers already mention it before the NT was COMPLETE!
 
joe370 said:
Hey Meltz, do we find in scripture, scripture telling us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, (1 tim. 3) - forever (John 14:16) - guided by the Paraclete into all truth, (John 16:13) - which suggests that the church, (as well as all scripture) - is inspired by God and therefore God-breathed, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work?
Click to expand...
I’m not opposing the Catholic view of tradition. In fact, I would say the Jewish perspective is closer to Catholicism since it relies quite a bit on rabbinical interpretation of the Torah, which that article is critical of. The only difference is that rabbinical interpretation within Judaism is just that: interpretation, not infallibility. How could it be, since rabbis always disagree! Still, it does fit under the category of authoritative tradition that is followed in practice. Back to the article, I appreciate some of its arguments, but I’m sure–as I suggested–that Catholics have just as good a rebuttal. Please understand I’m not taking sides in this “battle.” I’m just observing and commenting when something appeals to me.
 
Rightlydivide said:
equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura
Click to expand...
I am no expert but it seems to me this article makes numerous errors. It provides the authors’ private interpretations of various Scriptures, which we are explicitly told in 2 Peter 1:20 is not acceptable.

Take the following section:

“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.”

They seem to gloss over the fact that Christ gave His apostles the authority to bind things on Earth and in Heaven, which pretty clearly gives them the authority to appoint successors. What good is a foundation that dies and withers away? Just as Christ stays with us, the authority He gave to the apostles stays with us. Otherwise, you’d end up with a partially rotted foundation. So rather than the above quoted Scriptures supporting their private interpretation, it supports the Magisterium’s teaching regarding Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

This seems to be just the tip of the iceberg. Is this the best case for Sola Scriptura?
 
Alix1912 said:
Your understanding is not the correct interpretation of Sola Scriptura. Luther (who coined the phrase) meant for it to mean that Scripture is the Ultimate Source of Truth. It is inspired by God, however it was never meant to thorugh out tradition completely. What he intended was that traditions that contradicted scripture or inspired corruption were to be discarded. Not all tradition was to be throw out, not were the Early Church father’s writings to be throw out. Unfortunatly many denominations have essentially misinterpreted this to mean Scripture only. A Scripture only take would by it’s nature have th throw out all creeds, sermons, and writings as they are not in Scripture. This is not and was never the intent of Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
That is interesting. I’ve head something along this line before. It seems to me that there are disagreements amongst Protestants as to the correct understanding of Sola Scriptura. Some seem to be Solo Scriptura while others adopt more a sophisticated view.
 
I agree with other responses that the first link was a very well-presented argument in favor of sola scriptura.

However, I do not believe that it makes the case very convincingly. The first argument in the article is from 2 Tim 3:16-17. This is probably the best place to begin a defense of sola scriptura in the entire Bible. And it says a lot of accurate and wonderful things in favor of Scripture, things that every Catholic will agree with. All Scripture IS God-breathed (i.e., inspired by God through the Holy Spirit). And it IS useful/profitable for all of those things. And the man (or woman) of God is equipped for every good work with it. But being “equipped for every good work” isn’t the same thing as “you only need this Book, and you will know everything God wants to teach you.”

Paul isn’t making a case here for the sufficiency of Scripture APART from the traditions of the Church (or even just the oral teachings of Paul). Notice that in verse 14, just two verses before, Paul’s argument for belief is not based on Scripture, but on the personal knowledge that Timothy has of the believers themselves: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it.” Paul isn’t saying that Scripture, by itself, is sufficient for everything that a believer needs. This entire dialog is within the framework of personal knowledge from Paul and possibly other Apostles. It is only because Timothy has this background of oral teachings from his family, Paul, and the Church, that Timothy is able to use the Scriptures to equip himself for every good work.
 
Rightlydivide said:
equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura
Click to expand...
Quote from that article: “This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition.”

The CC does not teach that the bible is insufficient without tradition, and I am certain you didn’t believe that the CC taught that; see CCC80:

Quote from that article: “Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.”

Where does Paul declare that the God-breathed writings are sufficient?

Quote from that article: “Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal.” “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

Regarding, it is written, Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God - Jesus was appealing to the 27 books of the new testament as well, as the final authority?

Quote from that article: “…that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today.”

If the CC cannot interpret the bible inerrantly then no church can interpret the bible inerrantly - correct? If so then inerrant truth that divides Christianity is unknowable - correct?

Article: “In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers.”

So all Christians are to appeal to the bible as their only authority, and they are to interpret the holy bible as they are moved by the HS? This was Jesus’ plan for His church?

Article: "What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?..You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6).

Was Jesus referring to apostolic tradition as well? If so then where doe Jesus or scripture make that claim?

Article: "Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).11

When Paul spoke those words on that day, was he referring to the bible as you and I know it today?

Did Paul change his mind when he said his followers: So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

Standing firm and holding to the teachings they passed on by word of mouth seems to go beyond what is written?

“And now, dear brothers and sisters, we give you this command in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Stay away from all believers who live idle lives and don’t follow the tradition they received from us.”

Is this just written tradition?

Article: “For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God’s revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word.”

So certain men were infallible at one time? Or, were they simply fallible men teaching infallibly as they were moved by the infallible HS?

Article: “For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation.”

So, after the close of the apostolic age, the holy spirit stopped guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, leaving us with the Scriptures alone as the only infallible source of divine revelation, with no one to infallibly interpret the infallible source of divine revelation?

If so then how can I be sure that the CC, (post apostolic age and now absent of the guidance of the HS) - did not include books in the bible that shouldn’t be there or exclude books from the bible that should be there? :confused:

Article: “Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.”

So men like Augustine rejected the authority of the church as well as tradition?

Authority of the CC:

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed,** I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” **(Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6).
Code: 
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
Tradition:

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is,** to Apostolic Tradition,** and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
 
Well said in your original post Joe. I am with you 100%.

One way I come to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine is to step back and look at history along with the nature of our God. Christ died in the first century. Sola Scriptura comes out in the 16th century. Unlike a doctrine such as the Assumption of Mary that though defined in the 20th century was simply laying down definitively what had always been believed by the Church, Sola Scriptura was a* break* from what had been previously taught. It was totally new. Prior to the Reformation to be Christian was to be Catholic. And Catholics have always followed Holy Scripture and Tradition (evidence for the oral Tradition being in Scripture 2 Thess 2. 15 as well as early Church writings).

The point of this is that if Sola Scriptura - a totally new way of approaching biblical interpretation were right doctrine - were true, then 1500 years worth of Christians were totally wrong in how to access, interpret, and understand God’s revelation. If we believe that God is a loving God, a truthful God - if we take him seriously when he says that the gates of Hades will not overcome his Church - we cannot believe that he would allow his Church to be wrong on such a vital issue for over a thousand years.

Further, I cannot believe that God became man to give us his final and definitive revelation through the life, ministry and death of Jesus only for the Chrisitians who followed Him to be utterly confused about what God’s definitive revelation is. A Sola Scriptura hermenutic leaves a person’s interpretation of the Bible accountable to no one. There can be as many interpretations as interpretors. That this is true is attested to by the approximately 30,000 different Protestant denominations - all with their own variations of beliefs on issues such as baptism, ordination, justification, etc… vital issues in understanding God’s gospel and truth. Again, God is too loving and too merciful to let his Church wonder while they wander.

Check out these blog posts for more thoughts (not my blog):
youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-sola-scriptura-leads-to-pluralism.html
youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/03/sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural.html
 
Hey MervinBunter…
I agree with other responses that the first link was a very well-presented argument in favor of sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
However, I do not believe that it makes the case very convincingly. The first argument in the article is from 2 Tim 3:16-17. This is probably the best place to begin a defense of sola scriptura in the entire Bible. And it says a lot of accurate and wonderful things in favor of Scripture, things that every Catholic will agree with. All Scripture IS God-breathed (i.e., inspired by God through the Holy Spirit). And it IS useful/profitable for all of those things. And the man (or woman) of God is equipped for every good work with it. But being “equipped for every good work” isn’t the same thing as “you only need this Book, and you will know everything God wants to teach you.”
Click to expand...
I agree. Of course Christians belonging to the CC believe that All Scripture IS God-breathed…but not ONLY scripture for Jesus’ church is called the pillar and foundation of truth for a reason, and only the books found in the bible today, put there by the CC in the 4th century, when certain books were being disputed, are God breathed. Why trust that the CC got it right about that and wrong about other things, was a question I often pondered long ago.
Paul isn’t making a case here for the sufficiency of Scripture APART from the traditions of the Church (or even just the oral teachings of Paul). Notice that in verse 14, just two verses before, Paul’s argument for belief is not based on Scripture, but on the personal knowledge that Timothy has of the believers themselves: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it.” Paul isn’t saying that Scripture, by itself, is sufficient for everything that a believer needs. This entire dialog is within the framework of personal knowledge from Paul and possibly other Apostles. It is only because Timothy has this background of oral teachings from his family, Paul, and the Church, that Timothy is able to use the Scriptures to equip himself for every good work.
Click to expand...
Exactly…:)👍
 
Hey Thepottersclay…
Well said in your original post Joe. I am with you 100%. One way I come to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine is to step back and look at history along with the nature of our God. Christ died in the first century. Sola Scriptura comes out in the 16th century. Unlike a doctrine such as the Assumption of Mary that though defined in the 20th century was simply laying down definitively what had always been believed by the Church, Sola Scriptura was a* break* from what had been previously taught. It was totally new. Prior to the Reformation to be Christian was to be Catholic. And Catholics have always followed Holy Scripture and Tradition (evidence for the oral Tradition being in Scripture 2 Thess 2. 15 as well as early Church writings).
Click to expand...
Well said. :thumbsup:Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were the standards by which the CC authoritatively taught, clarified and defined doctrine in the face of heretical movements (and these movements were a product of individual private judgment, frowned upon in sacred scripture) - just as the CC did at the various Ecumenical councils.
The point of this is that if Sola Scriptura - a totally new way of approaching biblical interpretation were right doctrine - were true, then 1500 years worth of Christians were totally wrong in how to access, interpret, and understand God’s revelation. If we believe that God is a loving God, a truthful God - if we take him seriously when he says that the gates of Hades will not overcome his Church - we cannot believe that he would allow his Church to be wrong on such a vital issue for over a thousand years.
Click to expand...
I will be curious to hear what sola scriptura proponents have to say about that? 🙂
Further, I cannot believe that God became man to give us his final and definitive revelation through the life, ministry and death of Jesus only for the Chrisitians who followed Him to be utterly confused about what God’s definitive revelation is.
Click to expand...
Excellent point, and a perfect example would be the holy Eucharist, something believed by the very men who knew the apostles, eg Ignatius…If that were the case then the Holy spirit didn’t do a very good job at guiding the CC into all truth.
A Sola Scriptura hermenutic leaves a person’s interpretation of the Bible accountable to no one. There can be as many interpretations as interpretors. That this is true is attested to by the approximately 30,000 different Protestant denominations - all with their own variations of beliefs on issues such as baptism, ordination, justification, etc… vital issues in understanding God’s gospel and truth. Again, God is too loving and too merciful to let his Church wonder while they wander.
Click to expand...
Accountable to no one is spot on!!! God, since Pentecost, has shared His divinely revealed truth with anyone interested and God continues to share His divinely revealed truth via His church just as He did for the first 500 years of Christianity.
Check out these blog posts for more thoughts (not my blog):
youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-sola-scriptura-leads-to-pluralism.html
youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/03/sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural.html
Click to expand...
I’ll check them out right now brother!!! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top