Need help answering a Baptist

[inkaneer]

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

So then please explain how 2 Thess 2:15 is explained by sola scriptura. Here Paul is saying that both the Written Tradition and the Oral Tradition must be held onto. Sola scriptura says only the Written Tradition is to be held onto. How do you explain this contradiction? And make no mistake, it is a valad contradiction between scripture and sola scriptura.

 

[Faithdancer]

John 6: 51-58 and James 2: 14-26. 'Nuff said!

 

[ahs]

…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.

That would suggest to me that it doesn’t matter if there is a historical precendent for SS. SS only applies then to Christianity. Here are two glaring problems I see with that:

1- It applies to Christians only. Then how does one explain that, although Christ NEVER ONCE ordered anyting to be written down, that He expected us to rely on sola Scriptura?

2-It applies to Christianity only after the NT was written and compiled into the Canon of Scripture. How can one explain that, only after Scripture was written, that we are to rely on SS when we know from Scripture that not all Truth is recorded in Scripture AND Scripture admonishes us at least three times to hold to oral traditions as well as written (1Cor 11:2, 2Thess 2:15, 2Thess 3:6)?

In other words, we have to recognize at the very least that we have been admonished to recognize the oral Truth on an equal footing with the written Truth. To shun the oral Tradition or place the written above it, is directly contrary to Scripture and, in my opinion, presupposes that one believe that the oral Tradition has not survived…got lost somehwere…stopped being handed down (at least on the large scale). But this also is contrary to Scripture (Mk 16:15, Mk 13:31, 2Tim 1:13, 2Tim 2:2, Jn 14:26, Jn 16:13).

The common rebuttal then to me using the above verses in a way that is “out of context” or “not properly understood” requires immediately that one must intperpret, or use the interpretation they were shown…via a tradition…, in order to “properly understand” them. This brings us back to that conundrum I posed earlier:

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?"

 

[Simpleton]

I don’t limit my Bible study to what other people have determined I can or cannot read.
The fact that the book of Enoch is referred to in the NT tells me that it was considered valuable by the 1st century Christians.

So you don’t accept it or you accept only parts? Do you believe you will ever have have a complete Bible? If so who or what will make that decision?

 

[Faithdancer]

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

I love how Jimmy blows up sola scriptura from the standpoints of logistics, education, and pure logic. Sola scriptura is clearly an invention of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Faithdancer]

See post #112

                    *    .......... and post #114*

As soon as one starts referring back to previous posts- even one’s own- one is potentially influenced by the previous posts- even one’s own- and thereby is no longer relying on sola scriptura.

 

[Faithdancer]

As soon as one starts referring back to previous posts- even one’s own- one is potentially influenced by the previous posts- even one’s own- and thereby is no longer relying on sola scriptura.

 

[ahs]

I love how Jimmy blows up sola scriptura from the standpoints of logistics, education, and pure logic. Sola scriptura is clearly an invention of the Protestant Reformation.

Some samples, if I may:

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.

A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority…

Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, “born again” believer. There are simply too many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians…

…Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to-an easy task considering the number of different theological issues-then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up…

The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues…is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura…

…sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!

…even the average devout Christian has no inclination whatsoever to conduct the kind of Bible study needed to become his own theologian and the fact that he is encouraged by many pressures from his own pastor and congregation (including the threat of being cast out) to fall in line and not challenge–especially publicly challenge–the party platform.

CHRISTIANITY FOR THE COMMON MAN?

It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a bunch of idealistic, Renaissance-era dilettantes–people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had adequate nutrition, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles!

The average Christian today, even the average Christian in the developed world, does not fit that profile, and the average Christian in world history certainly did not, much less the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God’s plan. (Jimmy Akin, jimmyakin.com/library/practical-problems-of-sola-scriptura )

 

[Faithdancer]

Some samples, if I may:

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.

A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority…

Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, “born again” believer. There are simply too many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians…

…Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to-an easy task considering the number of different theological issues-then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up…

The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues…is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura…

…sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!

…even the average devout Christian has no inclination whatsoever to conduct the kind of Bible study needed to become his own theologian and the fact that he is encouraged by many pressures from his own pastor and congregation (including the threat of being cast out) to fall in line and not challenge–especially publicly challenge–the party platform.

CHRISTIANITY FOR THE COMMON MAN?

It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a bunch of idealistic, Renaissance-era dilettantes–people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had adequate nutrition, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles!

The average Christian today, even the average Christian in the developed world, does not fit that profile, and the average Christian in world history certainly did not, much less the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God’s plan. (Jimmy Akin, jimmyakin.com/library/practical-problems-of-sola-scriptura )

Oh, you most certainly may!

 

[Bookcat]

Here is another good article from Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers that I ran across:

thejimmyakinstore.com/library/2-timothy-316-17-and-sola-scriptura

 

[Bookcat]

Here is another good article from Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers that I ran across :

thejimmyakinstore.com/library/2-timothy-316-17-and-sola-scriptura

 

[William_C]

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?

I have no idea what your saying. Try re-phrasing it.

 

[William_C]

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

I originally said “the law,” Edwin. It was all of the law that was the heavy yoke.

 

[William_C]

In that post you stuck in a link. I have neither the time nor inclination to read 50+ articles regarding SS.

OK.

 

[William_C]

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* –

The only statement from Scripture that would satisfy you is one that states that Scripture is the final authority on faith and morals.

Nothing less will satisfy you.

That specific verse is not found in Scripture.

Nevertheless, and in spite of your desires not being met, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.

 

[Bookcat]

The only statement from Scripture that would satisfy you is one that states that Scripture is the final authority on faith and morals.

Nothing less will satisfy you.

That specific verse is not found in Scripture.

Nevertheless, and in spite of your desires not being met, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.

*Please cease.
*
(I have already stated that I am NOT referring to only such as you indicate there)

 

[inkaneer]

The only statement from Scripture that would satisfy you is one that states that Scripture is the final authority on faith and morals.

Nothing less will satisfy you.

That specific verse is not found in Scripture.

Nevertheless, and in spite of your desires not being met, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.

Not really, we’ll accept what is in scripture already, namely, 2 Thess 2:15 wherein Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold onto those traditions they receive by both the Written Tradition as well as the Oral Tradition. That verse is the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura.

Note to all: William C has placed me on his ignore list so he will probably not see this post. So if someone wants to pass it on you may do so.

 

[ahs]

Nevertheless…the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.

I suppose one could argue it is “logical” depending on what agreed definition is assigned to “logical”. And it can’t be denied that it is “reasoned from Scripture” by supporters of SS, but this does not mean that the reasoning represents a correct understanding of Scripture.

It becomes a debate of who has the correct understanding of Scripture…who is taking something “out of context” or “not properly understading Scripture”. This requires immediately that one must intperpret, or use the interpretation they were shown…via a tradition…, in order to “properly understand” any given Scriptural passage for any given teaching. This brings us back to that conundrum I posed earlier:

**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?" **

 

[William_C]

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

So what?

ahs:

He was referring to the Law (both written and oral).

Please list all of the OT law that isn’t written.

ahs:

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.

He made his decision from his knowledge of Christ, and the Spirit.

ahs:

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.

See above.

 

[William_C]

I suppose one could argue it is “logical” depending on what agreed definition is assigned to “logical”. And it can’t be denied that it is “reasoned from Scripture” by supporters of SS, but this does not mean that the reasoning represents a correct understanding of Scripture.

It becomes a debate of who has the correct understanding of Scripture…who is taking something “out of context” or “not properly understading Scripture”. This requires immediately that one must intperpret, or use the interpretation they were shown…via a tradition…, in order to “properly understand” any given Scriptural passage for any given teaching.

Then you should stick with what suits your private interpretation of scriptures, and your desires, which it seems is the notion of Scripture and tradition. Fine.