Previous Sola Scriptura argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flying_Bison
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Flying_Bison

Guest
(I) Even on its own terms, the Roman Church has failed to offer a coherent alternative inasmuch as the concept of tradition has become a plaything in the hands of the Magisterium. What is meant by sacred tradition? Is it oral tradition? Early tradition? The consent of the Fathers? The consent of the Doctors? The consent of the faithful? The charism of the Magisterium? The concept has mutated from being a body of unwritten instructions that Christ committed to the Apostles to a “process of living Tradition.” This is not a natural evolutionary continuum, but rather a revolutionary break with the original point.
Just consider the historical revisionism of Ratzinger: “Before Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers’ answer was emphatically negative… ’Tradition’ was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner,
the patrologist from Würzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the ‘apostolic tradition.’ And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand ‘tradition’ strictly as the handling down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of ‘tradition’ as a living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent ‘remembering’ (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet w as handed down in the original Word,” Milestones (Ignatius, 1998), 58-59. Aside from reversing the traditional basis of Catholic apologetics, hindsight presupposes a sighting; absent historical documentation, there is nothing to remember and reflect on.

Such a ductile definition, which resembles the house that Jack built, may save appearances, but the reluctance to stake out a firm position means that your position never takes the shape of an identifiable alternative. And so it doesn’t challenge people to believe otherwise.
(ii) It is instructive to observe how even Leo XIII must fall back on the Protestant rule of faith in order to establish the Magisterium:
Since the divine and infallible Magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the Divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors," The Papal Encyclicals (Perian 1990), 2:333b.
(iii) The principle of sola scriptura is implicit in the finality of the canon. There is always more that could be said. Scripture itself concedes this possibility (cf. Jn 20:30-31; 21:25; Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:7-9; Heb 9:5b). In that respect there is never any absolutely natural cut-off point. But for that selfsame reason, a somewhat arbitrary line has to be drawn, for a complete record would be completely unmanageable. To admit an element of arbitrariness here is not to say that it’s unreasonable or unnecessary. The point is not to say everything, but to say enough.

Scripture is the necessary and sufficient source of saving knowledge (2 Tim 3:15-17). Not only is further information gratuitous, but Paul expressly warns the Church not to go beyond what is written—employing a stock citation formula for Scripture (1 Cor 4:6). This is, of course, pegged to progressive revelation, but the canon is closed.

The very fact that, unlike some other religions and cults, Christianity does not have an open canon implies that ongoing revelation or its functional equivalent (the Magisterium) is both unnecessary and presumptuous. God himself drew the boundaries by withholding further revelation.
(iv) It should go without saying that sola scriptura is mainly a norm for the readers of Scripture and not the writers of Scripture. An inspired author doesn’t have to appeal to Scripture in order to advance a claim since his own words enjoy canonical authority. This is where Scripture comes from. He is making up inspired Scripture as he goes along. Again, it is obviously anachronistic to expect that a NT writer would make systematic appeal to the NT. When, therefore, it is asked, Where does Scripture teach sola scriptura?—we have to keep these elementary distinctions in mind. What is remarkable is how often the sacred authors do invoke prior revelation, even though they could speak on their own authority. In so doing they are conditioning the reader to honor the principle of sola Scriptura.
 
(v) Loyalty to God’s revealed will, and not tradition, is always made the acid test of religious fidelity in sacred history. As John Frame has remarked, after copious citation, “The whole OT history is a history of obedience and disobedience: obedience and disobedience to what? To God’s commands; and after Exod 20, to God’s written word!” (“Scripture Speaks for Itself,” God’s Inerrant Word, J.W. Montgomery, ed. [Bethany, 1974], 199). Some of its contents originally took the form of oral address, but that doesn’t amount to oral tradition since the practice was to immediately commit such disclosures to writing (e.g. Exod 17:14; 24:3-4; Deut 33:9,22,24-28; Josh 24:26; 1 Sam 20:25; Rev 1:11,19; 21:5).
(vi) Since so much of Christian doctrine consists in truths that are far removed from us in time and space—from events in the distant past or future, the invisible present (E.g. spiritual warfare; the intermediate state), and God’s delitescent decree, to the afterlife and age to come—our only access to such information is via a public revelation. So the principle of sola scriptura is also rooted in the principle of a revealed religion.

(vii) The burden of proof doesn’t rest on the Protestant. All the major branches of Christendom—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant—at least pay lip-service to the supreme authority of Scripture. And they all formally deny the continuance of revelation—at least of the canonical variety. That being the case, the Protestant doesn’t even have to show where Scripture itself expressly or implicitly rules out such a role for sacred tradition. It is sufficient for him to show that, as a matter of inevitable practice, this appeal interferes with the authority and authentic interpretation of Scripture. It subordinates the voice of Scripture to the voice of tradition.

One should add that the antiquity of tradition is no evidence of apostolicity, for orthodoxy and heresy coexisted in the apostolic churches. The bulk of the NT correspondence was addressed to doctrinal and disciplinary crises that arose in Apostolic sees. So even if we could trace a tradition all the way back to Apostolic times, or to an Apostolic See, no less, that wouldn’t be the same as tracing it back to Apostolic teaching, for as soon as an Apostle was away from one church to minister to another, error could quickly flare up in his absence. This lies on the face of many NT letters. So it is quite blind to contend that the antiquity of tradition carries any presumption in favor of its apostolic pedigree. By that measure, Simon Magus was a greater champion of orthodoxy than Athanasius!
 
This was a defense to sola-scriptura posted on a different board. It is perhaps the most wordy and least substantial argument I’ve seen in a while. Here is why.
  1. The author in his answer to sola-scriptura begins not by defending his point but by bashing the Catholic Church. It states that the Church has offered no alternative to sacred scripture. Well that is untrue. Apostolic Tradition, Scripture, and Magesterium is an alternative. He also states that the Church doesn’t have a definition of Apostolic tradition. Again not-true The Church has stated that Apostolic tradition had been taught orally at first, some was written down through the ages by the fathers and then addressed in various councils. Just because at one point the teachings were written down, does not make them un-Apostolic. Just because at one time a Church father wrote down an oral teaching does not make it no longer based on oral teaching. So yes, Apostolic teaching can be passed on and shown in certain councils and writing of the Church fathers.
  2. Also in his argument, he argues against Apostolic tradition by giving examples of development of Doctorine. These are Apples and Oranges. He states the Assumption of Mary is an example of how the Apostolic Tradition is a “plaything.” Well, to make a good argument, he should know the difference between development of doctrine and Apostolic Tradition. What we do know is that sacred Scripture in the Old Testament states that people have been assumed into heaven. Examples, such as Elijah and Enoch come to mind. The doctrine developed based on questions about the remains of Mary. No one claimed to have them and most important NT figures, actually all of the Apostles burial places have been claimed and so have their Earthy remains. So, when the question arouse about the remains of Mary, the Church gathered evidence and made a decision. Ask a protestant to determine the morality of Space Travel. Well, it’s not in the Bible, so as Catholic’s do they would have to develop doctrine. In fact, Sola Scriptura is a development of doctrine. NOWHERE in Scripture is it touted as the sole rule of faith, So Protestants had to develop a DOCTRINE outside of scripture called sola scriptura by collecting evidence NOT found in scripture because scripture doesn’t call itself the only rule of faith.
  3. Also, the writer uses 2 Tim 3 15-17 as a proof that scripture is all that is needed. ALL that passage says is that scripture is inspired, useful, and good for teaching. So what, Catholic’s would agree and nowhere does this say that Scripture is the only rule of faith. He also uses 1 Cor 4:6 as proof. Well it is totally taken out of Context. First Paul is talking about the Old Testament because most of the NT wasn’t written yet, and therefore, he is warning the Corinthians not to misunderstand the role of Christ prophesized in the OT. Nothing more; In fact Paul continually tells people in his letters not to deviate from the ORAL teaching that he gave them. So either Paul contradicts himself or this passage is taken dreadfully out of context.
 
  1. The writer states that the finality of the Canon is implicit evidence of sola-scriptura. No it isn’t. The Canon was simply standardized in the 4th century to avoid heretical books and to keep only those writing directly associated with the Apostles in the Canon. It was never used as a way to put all of the teachings of the Apostles into one book and not use any other teachings. All of the teachings of the Apostles were never written down by them, which is evident by scripture itself. Most of the NT letters are simply responses to questions about oral teaching, they in no way were used as a comprehensive guide to Christianity.
  2. Lastly, the Author states that the burden of proof is not on the Protestant. Says who? Any logic class will tell you that this is false. Protestantism came after Catholicism, about 1500 years after. So since Sola-scriptura is a deviation from some previously agreed upon truth, it has the burden to prove its truth. In order for one to prove a new theory is truth they must prove that it is true. So, by his logic I could say that the moon is made of sponge candy. By his definition since my idea is new the burden of proof lays on others to prove their claim. So if I could prove that the moon is not made of Green cheese (as was previously thought) it must therefore be made of sponge candy. That is a gross error of logic. The protestant does need to show in scripture where it claims that it is the sole rule of faith. If not he must use outside sources, development of doctrine, and inquiry to try to prove his point and therefore scripture can’t be the only rule of faith if one must look outside of the only rule of faith to prove one only rule of faith.
  3. Lastly, this author continually talks about the agreed upon 27 books of the New Testament. OK, so how did these books become the Canon. Well, the roots and fruits quality assurance was used. First, all of the books had to be related to one of the apostles, roots… How are these books known to be related to Apostles. Form Tradition. Many heretical books claimed to be associated with Apostles, such as the gospel of Judas, Thomas,…etc. Why were there not used? Because Church Tradition stated that they were not apostolic even though not all books in the bible contain Apostles names or claim to be associated with Apostles. Many heretical books do make this claim. Secondly, a fruits assurance was used. This means that for a book to be included, it had to agree with Traditional Catholic teachings. These teachings were continued orally and in writing by the Church and can be traced back to the Apostolic age without using the NT. Well, what authority did the Church have to authenticate these books? They were the agreed upon successors of the Apostles and the keepers of the faith taught by the fathers. So, to use the NT testament as an authentic book, as Protestants do, the must concede that Tradition preceded the Canon and was actually used to determine the Canon. So in effect to deny the authority of the Church and it Traditions is to deny authentication of the Bible. Without these, Protestant are simply just assuming that the NT has always been and Tradition developed afterwards. This is false. To verify the Canon is to verify the authority of the Church’s and the primacy of Tradition in determining the Canon.
 
Wow. That’s one long post. Actually 3 or 4.

To me SS is becoming such a dead horse anyway. Any teaching that doesn’t lead one to the correct moral values is fruitless.

Your answers were really good though, once I figured out that the majority of the posts were something being rebutted.
 
I know better than to argue with anyone that can come up with that much written word, so here’s a short comment.

The Lord God always goes to His Books (Written Words) when it is time to get to the final word on justification, revelation, or judgement.
The Ten commandments were written in stone.
Jesus used the Written Word to counter Satan’s twisted “oral tradition version” of Scripture.
“It is written” runs throughout the Bible as the ultimate proof of authenticity of what Truth is.
I could care less about the oral or written word of men if it is not completely supported by the Word of God.
To down play God’s Written Word as equal in any way to fallible man’s word or oral tradition is to take chances with that final written word which we must all face alone, which is the Lamb’s book of life. (Rev. 21:27)
 
The Lord God always goes to His Books (Written Words) when it is time to get to the final word on justification, revelation, or judgement.
The Ten commandments were written in stone.
Jesus used the Written Word to counter Satan’s twisted “oral tradition version” of Scripture.
“It is written” runs throughout the Bible as the ultimate proof of authenticity of what Truth is.
I could care less about the oral or written word of men if it is not completely supported by the Word of God.
To down play God’s Written Word as equal in any way to fallible man’s word or oral tradition is to take chances with that final written word which we must all face alone, which is the Lamb’s book of life. (Rev. 21:27)

This is the most bizarre un-biblical tripe I have seen in these Forums since Zerinus the Mormon sulked about !!
"The Lord God always goes to His Books" Of course, He forgets what He says from time to time. Where is this in the OT or in the NT?? Is it in 2 Ben Born Agin 1:2-3??

"The Ten Commandments were written in stone" And, and, what’s your point? What about the other two Jesus added in the NT? And which decalogue are we talking about, there are two DIFFERENT lists in WRITING in the OT??

"Satan’s twisted ‘oral tradition version’ of Scripture." Of course, Satan kept the Bible out of the true believers hands until God figured out how to invent the printing press with movable type!

God bless you Broken! but what you spout is hateful and unChristian.

You need to leave.
 
Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
  1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura that all sola scripturists hold to. Without this, how can one practice it when one doesn’t even know what it is?
  2. Sola scripturists routinely interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This doctrine or interpretation is nowhere in the Bible. This is a TRADITION, and not sticking to scripture alone.
  3. Sola scripturists routinely make declarations like “this is unbiblical!” “your interpretation is wrong” and things like that. This is them exercising their MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY. This is not sticking to scripture alone.
 
God bless you too JonathanKinsman!

I took note of your gracious example of how to respond as a Christian. I found your response to be very convincing, and the least that I could do in my own response to such graciousness would be to go along with your request that I leave. Please do not consider my leaving as being the result of any mutual agreement in most of what you said though. Thank you.
 
One of the things people forget is, who did God give authority to?
The church not the bible has the authority to:

Binding of sins in heaven and earth Mt 16:19
To settle disputes Mt 18:17
Baptism, the bible cannot baptize us, the church must Jn 3:5
The pillar of Truth is not the bible but the church 1 Tim 3:15
Withdaw yourself from those not following tradition 2 Thess 3:6
Scripture not for self interpretation 2 Pet 1:20
Confess your sins, but who other than God can bind those sins if the church doesnt have the authority? Jam 5:13-15

This is just a short list, could go on for days if you would like. To keep this post short, I know that most christians will agree you have to be baptised to be saved. But can the bible baptise you? Of course not. Can we baptise ourselves? The answer is no again. The church must baptise us. My point for now is that scripture in itself, is still just scripture. The the written words are protected by the holy spirit, but just reading the bible doesnt grant salvation. You still have to be baptised. I can go into more details on just salvation but that will be for another time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top