Need help answering a Baptist

[mdcpensive1]

Click the link, and read to your heart’s content, or don’t.

If you’re a Catholic worth your salt, you should be able to see that for yourself.

Actually, I read some of that stuff before I replied. As a Catholic I don’t know if I am worth my salt because I know that I am small in the skeem of things. I had asked if you could show how it is logical. I do not see SS as being logical and if you would be so kind, I would appreciate your help in this matter. There are a billion Catholics on this planet and I don’t see how you can say that it is self evident to them.
mdcpensive1

 

[William_C]

Actually, I read some of that stuff before I replied. As a Catholic I don’t know if I am worth my salt because I know that I am small in the skeem of things. I had asked if you could show how it is logical. I do not see SS as being logical and if you would be so kind, I would appreciate your help in this matter. There are a billion Catholics on this planet and I don’t see how you can say that it is self evident to them.
mdcpensive1

Look, if you don’t see that it’s logical, then you don’t see that it’s logical. I’m fine with that. You should be in a church that is more appropriate to your desires. Perhaps a church that denies Sola Scriptura is logical.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Look, if you don’t see that it’s logical, then you don’t see that it’s logical. I’m fine with that. You should be in a church that is more appropriate to your desires. Perhaps a church that denies Sola Scriptura is logical.

I was wondering if you really could explain it.

That is the beauty of the Catholic faith. The logos is the all knowledge, all logic, all knowing. God is and the Catholic faith is logical. It works with all of scripture and does not have to rely on individual passages to the exclusion of others. God is and the Church is reasonable. Faith and reason work together.
mdcpensive1

 

[William_C]

I was wondering if you really could explain it.

That is the beauty of the Catholic faith. The logos is the all knowledge, all logic, all knowing. God is and the Catholic faith is logical. It works with all of scripture and does not have to rely on individual passages to the exclusion of others. God is and the Church is reasonable. Faith and reason work together.
mdcpensive1

I’ve referred you to much written material. You said you’ve read some. You’ve said after reading some, you still don’t think SS is logical. I doubt anything I would say would change your opinion.

It’s OK. Not everyone is going to agree with SS, despite its logical reasonableness.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I’ve referred you to much written material. You said you’ve read some. You’ve said after reading some, you still don’t think SS is logical. I doubt anything I would say would change your opinion.

It’s OK. Not everyone is going to agree with SS, despite its logical reasonableness.

Thanks for your reply. I enjoy talking with you because I know a person of faith is an important person.
From what I know is that the “Church” as you may want to define it, came from the Jewish faith when Christ established a new covenant and gave it new leadership in the apostles. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think that the covenant people (Jews) back then believed in SS since the two most important rules of faith came from Leviticus and Deuteronomy which were to love one another and God. Is that your understanding also? If they didn’t have that belief back then I always wonder why it is in the faith now unless it was added. Do you know the answer?

PS Some of those articles are long.
mdcpensive1

 

[Bookcat]

jimmyakin.com/library/practical-problems-of-sola-scriptura

 

[Shannon9791]

See my post #48.

In that post you stuck in a link. I have neither the time nor inclination to read 50+ articles regarding SS. What I want is for you to use your brain and point out the logic and reasoning that SS can be found in scripture. I have not seen you offer one shred of reasoning as to why you think SS can be found in scripture and that’s what I asked of you, not a link to the writing of others. I’ve read some of the works of James White and the others who have articles on that page and was not impressed. I’m calling on William C to impress me. As you said, any non-Catholic worth his salt should be able to give the argument as to why Sola Scriptura is both logical and reasoned from the Scriptures.

 

[Bookcat]

Sola Scriptura is self-refuting --it proposes that Scripture is the only authority for doctrine – yet the doctrine of Sola Scriptura “itself” is simply not found in Scripture* – it is a doctrine that by this fact refutes itself. It is contrary to itself and thus not valid. Similar to that which relativists promote – “there is no absolute truth” --which is asserted there as an absolute truth --thus contradicting the statement “there is no absolute truth” --therefore such is not a valid approach.

*(and I do not mean that Scripture just does not say it in some nice compact way --but that is simply is not found in Scripture. The “not found in Scripture” is also not referring to the term either. We all know that Sacred Scripture refers to the Holy Trinity (well Christians do) --but that the term is not there. In the case of Sola Scriptura – neither the term nor the doctrine is found in Scripture.)

(Again this is noted with great respect and love for my fellow Christians–by whom I have been edified as a Christian)

 

[Contarini]

You don’t believe in the method that you just used to prove it’s not there. Ok.

That’s entirely legitimate. It’s a reductio ad absurdum.

If you say, “the only fictional heroes worth imitating are those in the novels of Charles Dickens, and one of my favorites is Mr. Darcy,” I don’t have to agree with the premise in order to point out that Mr. Darcy is not a Dickens character.

Now a legitimate response on your part would be that the Catholics misunderstand what you mean by sola scriptura. If they then respond, “but sola scriptura must mean what we say it means, because the word “only” obviously means that nothing else is to be used at all,” then you have a right to object. But you can’t just rule all objections out of court because they don’t believe in the principle. You have to show them that they are misinterpreting the principle.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

Hmmm? To what? Take a wild guess…

To the divinely given Torah, recorded in Scripture and amplified by oral tradition.

If you are arguing that he was referring simply to oral tradition (and if you are you would have saved trouble by saying so instead of playing coy games with a tone of sneering superiority), then you are clearly wrong. The discussion in Acts 15 referred first and foremost to circumcision, which is obviously found in Scripture. One can also presume that the dietary laws were involved, which again, are found in their basic principles in Scripture. Had the Council of Jerusalem imposed on Gentile believers only those things found in Scripture, Christians would not eat pork today.

Edwin

 

[Bookcat]

Sola Scriptura is self-refuting --it proposes that Scripture is the only authority for doctrine – yet the doctrine of Sola Scriptura “itself” is simply not found in Scripture* – it is a doctrine that by this fact refutes itself. It is contrary to itself and thus not valid. Similar to that which relativists promote – “there is no absolute truth” --which is asserted there as an absolute truth --thus contradicting the statement “there is no absolute truth” --therefore such is not a valid approach.

*(and I do not mean that Scripture just does not say it in some nice compact way --but that is simply is not found in Scripture. The “not found in Scripture” is also not referring to the term either. We all know that Sacred Scripture refers to the Holy Trinity (well Christians do) --but that the term is not there. In the case of Sola Scriptura – neither the term nor the doctrine is found in Scripture.)

(Again this is noted with great respect and love for my fellow Christians–by whom I have been edified as a Christian)

 

[Bookcat]

To the divinely given Torah, recorded in Scripture and amplified by oral tradition.

If you are arguing that he was referring simply to oral tradition (and if you are you would have saved trouble by saying so instead of playing coy games with a tone of sneering superiority), then you are clearly wrong. The discussion in Acts 15 referred first and foremost to circumcision, which is obviously found in Scripture. One can also presume that the dietary laws were involved, which again, are found in their basic principles in Scripture. Had the Council of Jerusalem imposed on Gentile believers only those things found in Scripture, Christians would not eat pork today.

Edwin

And that is a good example.

At the time of the Council of Jerusalem – the Early Christians did not have the “Acts” as Sacred Scripture. If they had anything from what we now call the New Testament (I would have to check dates on the rest -but even if they existed they were not necessarily in the hands of many)-they certainly did not have Acts.

So if they were to follow Sola Scriptura – they would have to not accept the decision that Gentiles need not be circumcised etc etc But if they where following “Sola Scriptura” they would have to have had said --sorry that is not found in the Scriptures so we do not except such a decision --for only what is from the Sacred Scriptures is of authority (according to Sola Scriptura).

 

[Contarini]

And that is a good example.

At the time of the Council of Jerusalem – the Early Christians did not have the “Acts” as Sacred Scripture. If they had anything from what we now call the New Testament (I would have to check dates on the rest -but even if they existed they were not necessarily in the hands of many)-they certainly did not have Acts.

So if they were to follow Sola Scriptura – they would have to not accept the decision that Gentiles need not be circumcised etc etc But if they where following “Sola Scriptura” they would have to have had said --sorry that is not found in the Scriptures so we do not except such a decision --for only what is from the Sacred Scriptures is of authority (according to Sola Scriptura).

To be fair, sola scriptura only applies once all the books of the NT canon have been written. That’s a bit of a straw-man argument on the part of Catholics. Most forms of sola scriptura do not hold that by some necessity of nature only things written down can be inspired and authoritative. They hold that in fact all revelation has been written down. That’s the best explanation for why sola scriptura is not mentioned in Scripture itself–it couldn’t be, because it wouldn’t be true until the last book had been written.

I’ll let William speak for himself, but his post doesn’t necessarily contradict this, since he’s speaking of OT revelation. He appears to believe that all the revelation of the Old Covenant was found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Not all Protestants believe this–I’ve encountered some authors who teach that there was an oral messianic tradition not written down in the OT but eventually reflected in the New. But William’s position does not imply that apostolic teaching at the time of Acts 15 had to have been written down to be authoritative.

Edwin

 

[Bookcat]

To be fair, sola scriptura only applies once all the books of the NT canon have been written.

Edwin

The point I made is a valid thing to think about still even for those who hold off til the Canon.

And even for those who would insist then on setting the clock ahead a few hundred years to then–Sola Scriptura did not come along for some 1200 years after the Canon…

and again in any case it is still NOT a doctrine found in Scripture --so it is still self-refuting no matter what year one is living in.

 

[Contarini]

The point I made is a valid thing to think about still even for those who hold off til the Canon.

And even for those who would insist then on setting the clock ahead a few hundred years to then–Sola Scriptura did not come along for some 1200 years after the Canon…

and again in any case it is still NOT a doctrine found in Scripture --so it is still self-refuting no matter what year one is living in.

It’s not necessarily self-refuting, because it’s a negative claim, not a positive one.

Most modestly, Sola Scriptura is the claim “we have no reason to be confident that any divine revelation has come down to us otherwise than in Scripture.”

I think this is a false claim. But I don’t think it’s self-refuting.

Edwin

 

[Bookcat]

It’s not necessarily self-refuting, because it’s a negative claim, not a positive one.

Most modestly, Sola Scriptura is the claim “we have no reason to be confident that any divine revelation has come down to us otherwise than in Scripture.”

I think this is a false claim. But I don’t think it’s self-refuting.

Edwin

I disagree

(and revising Sola Scriptura is creating something else…)

 

[Contarini]

I disagree

(and revising Sola Scriptura is creating something else…)

Well, I disagree with that–it’s a draconian way of using language that would require us to have a much bigger arsenal of terms than is practical. But more to the point, I’m not revising it. I’m basing my interpretation on the writings of early Protestant figures like Martin Chemnitz.

Edwin

 

[Bookcat]

Well, I disagree with that–it’s a draconian way of using language that would require us to have a much bigger arsenal of terms than is practical. But more to the point, I’m not revising it. I’m basing my interpretation on the writings of early Protestant figures like Martin Chemnitz.

Edwin

Oh I understand that you do not hold SS

Such though has not been the approach of SS (even if some may hold or held such…)

Anyhow we disagree on that point :tiphat:

 

[inkaneer]

(about the letter concerning circumcision at the Jerusalem council)
Was it?? How do you determine that it was divine revelation? If you believe it was then how come that letter is not in the bible? I hope you don’t say that everything about the bible is directly given by the Holy Spirit because it is a joint effort. It was not a Holy direct dictation.

Also, how was it that the bishop of Jerusalem had to convene a group to determine the course of action with both sides of the argument about circumcision being presented with Peter making the final decision? Did Peter lose his free will?

mdcpensive1

The book of Acts in chapter 15 verse 28 states:

“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:” [RSV]

There was no appeal to scripture. Indeed it was the Judiacizers who appealed to scripture. Here the Apostles showed that they had authority to make decisions independent of scripture.

As for your second question, how do you know it was the bishop of Jerusalem who convened the council? There are a lot of things we do not know about this council. One of them being when it was called and who called it. The general consensus is it occurred sometime in the period of 35-50 AD with the early date probably more accurate. Other early church writers have it that Peter left Jerusalem for Antioch and in 42 AD left there for Rome. But none of these dates are certain just as the date of the crucifixion and that of Jesus birth have not been determined with certainty.

What we do know is that the church had grown for there were deacons pordained earlier in Acts 6 and Acts 15 says there were priests [presbuteros] as well as Apostles gathered to consider the matter. How many Apostles we don’t know although there were at least two, Peter and James. But Peter took charge of the council for Acts tells us there was much debate but when Peter stood and spoke the others fell silent [Acts 15:6-12]. James does preside at the council as it is held in his bishopric [diocese] and he formulates the final decision that is approved.

 

[ahs]

Which is probably why they had so many problems, and failures.

The Jews did not know Sola Scriptura, so what?

I stipulate that the Jews did not rely on Sola Scriptura. So what? What does that mean? What earth shattering revelation is revealed in that? Please tell me.

It means that there is no historical basis for sola Scriptura, as has been claimed or insinuated by some Protestants.

Sure it was. In Acts 15:10, to what do you think Peter was referring when talking about not “putting a yoke on the neck of the [gentile] disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

Hmmm? To what? Take a wild guess…

… In Acts 15:10, to what do you think Peter was referring when talking about not “putting a yoke on the neck of the [gentile] disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

Hmmm? To what? Take a wild guess…

He was referring to the Law (both written and oral). But even if you want to claim Peter was referring to the Law only as written in Scripture in OT when he said, “…putting a yoke on the neck of the [gentile] disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear…” you still have not shown what OT Scripture he was referring to by making the decision to excuse the Gentiles from that Law.

My question is: which OT Scripture was he referring to that allowed him to decide the Gentiles do not have to be circumsized? Please show me which OT Scripture says that either 1) Gentiles don’t have to be circumsized or 2) Peter (or any person) is allowed to make such an exception for the Gentiles.

You see, if Peter was ONLY using Scripture, he could not have said that Gentiles don’t need to be circumsized…because no Scripture in his time allowed for such. Peter was relying on something else. This again shows that sola Scriptura has no historical basis, as has been claimed by some Protestants.

I like how inkaneer explains it:

The book of Acts in chapter 15 verse 28 states:

“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:” [RSV]

There was no appeal to scripture. Indeed it was the Judiacizers who appealed to scripture. Here the Apostles showed that they had authority to make decisions independent of scripture.

Would you like to try to solve the conundrum that was posed using sola Scriptura? Here it is again in case you missed it:

There are at least two camps of Protestant Christians in regards to OSAS. Both hold directly conflicting views of OSAS and both base their views on sola Scriptura. Using sola Scriptura, how is this conundrum resolved?"

My answer to this is: it can’t be. In order to resolve the conundrum, one must rely on something outside of Scripture.