Protestant defense of sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter jennyhay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please not Webster and King. They certainly have the LONGEST defense of sola scriptura in print, but the BEST defense is still Keith Mathison since at least he is honest (from my review of Mathison at Amazon.com)
Is is your opinion that Mathison is best and that is fine, but I disagree. BTW, here is what Mathison himself says about the king and Webster work:
Dr Keith Mathison review of King & Webster:
This set by Webster and King is the most thorough and exhaustive modern treatment of the doctrine of sola scriptura that I have seen. It should find a place next to the works of Whitaker and Goode. The volumes are well-written and very carefully argued. The authors back up their claims about the teaching of the early church with numerous citations and clearly show the discontinuity between apostolic Christianity and the doctrine of the modern Roman Catholic Church.
You said:
Mathison concedes a ton. For example: We have no evidence demonstrating that the Church considered the Apostles teaching to be entirely confined to written documents (page 21). The concept of tradition in the Fathers designated the body of doctrine committed to the Church by the Lord or His Apostles whether oral or written (21). The Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the Church within the regula fidei (rule of faith). Taken out of this context, it would inevitably be mishandled (this point is constantly repeated and emphasized: page 48, also 81, 85, 120, 140, 147, 150, 151, 167, 267).
First, it seems like you are saying the one that concedes the most to your position is the best? Second, I don’t think Webster and King claims all the church consider all the Apostles teaching to be confined to writing. As a matter of fact everyone knows some fathers argue for Apostolic teaching outside of Scripture(e.g… Jesus living to be over 50 years of age ). The point is we cannot validate these apostolic teachings and fathers disagree over what these teachings are. Furthermore, not all fathers believed in this extra infallible source of teaching(e.g. Augustine )

Grace and Peace,
S.S.
 
First, it seems like you are saying the one that concedes the most to your position is the best? Second, I don’t think Webster and King claims all the church consider all the Apostles teaching to be confined to writing. As a matter of fact everyone knows some fathers argue for Apostolic teaching outside of Scripture(e.g… Jesus living to be over 50 years of age ). The point is we cannot validate these apostolic teachings and fathers disagree over what these teachings are. Furthermore, not all fathers believed in this extra infallible source of teaching(e.g. Augustine )

Grace and Peace,
S.S.
Agreed and that’s how Catholics stray from scripture. I think they rely more on their teachings and traditions than the Word of God. 😦
 
Agreed and that’s how Catholics stray from scripture. I think they rely more on their teachings and traditions than the Word of God. 😦
Hi Blue Serenity, 🙂

I believe we follow the Bible as much as non-Catholics, plus the traditions. Can you name something that we go against the Bible and traditions?
 
…not all fathers believed in this extra infallible source of teaching(e.g. Augustine )
St. Augustine

*“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” *— St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith
 
Hi Blue Serenity, 🙂

I believe we follow the Bible as much as non-Catholics, plus the traditions. Can you name something that we go against the Bible and traditions?
Hi Water,

I don’t want to distract from the topic of sola Scriptura, but the Immaculate Conception is one. The Scriptures clearly teach that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God(Rom. 3:23). Catholics teach all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God except Mary. The Scriptures teach that God justifies the ungodly(i.e. Rom. 4:5). Catholics teach God justifies the ungodly and godly(i.e. Mary ). Scripture teaches Christ died for the ungodly( Rom. 5:6). Catholics teach Christ died for the ungodly and the godly(i.e. Mary ).

Grace and Peace,
S.S.
 
St. Augustine

*“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” *— St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith
Hi E.E.N.S.

I can’t seem to find anywhere in that quote where Augustine says there is another infallible source besides the Scriptures? As a matter of fact in another place Augustine says the following:
“God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.” *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm LXXXIX, Sec. 4.
*
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
 
SS << First, it seems like you are saying the one that concedes the most to your position is the best? >>

I meant the one who actually tries to present all the data accurately by admitting the Church is the sole authentic true interpreter of Scripture is the best. That’s what Mathison does, that’s what Protestant scholars Schaff (Presbyterian) / Kelly (Anglican) / Pelikan (then Lutheran now Orthodox) also affirm, and that’s what Webster/King in their volumes try to hide and deny. Very dishonest of them.

SS << Second, I don’t think Webster and King claims all the church consider all the Apostles teaching to be confined to writing. As a matter of fact everyone knows some fathers argue for Apostolic teaching outside of Scripture (e.g… Jesus living to be over 50 years of age). The point is we cannot validate these apostolic teachings and fathers disagree over what these teachings are. Furthermore, not all fathers believed in this extra infallible source of teaching (e.g. Augustine) >>

Oh please, not the St. Irenaeus "50 year old Jesus" thing again, but I don’t want to get into that right now. 😃 What I cited from Yves Congar, and the conclusions of Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan in my article is what Webster/King ignore, and what Mathison for the most part concedes. That’s why I think Mathison is more honest and fair. He then trashes the Papacy in his book but I expect no less from a Reformed critic. 🙂

Webster/King deny the visible Church is the sole authentic true interpreter of Scripture, and Webster/King deny the Fathers believed that also. Webster/King say the Fathers affirm “Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e. it is self-interpreting” (see Webster/King, volume 3, page 9-10 point #11 of their twelve-point Introduction before all the citations of the Fathers). That’s the main difference between their “version” of sola scriptura, and Mathison’s “version.”

The only difference as I see it between Mathison and Catholicism / Orthodoxy at this point is locating the authority of the Church, and the nature of the visible Church (with a Papacy, etc) who does the interpreting of Scripture.

Phil P
 
Hi Sola Scriptura,

Aa Christians, can we ONLY believe and practice what we find in Scripture?

Or can we believe or practice something NOT FOUND in Scripture as long as it does not CONTRADICT what we find in Scripture?

Thanks,
Gene
 
Hi Blue Serenity, 🙂

I believe we follow the Bible as much as non-Catholics, plus the traditions. Can you name something that we go against the Bible and traditions?
Neigh, more. No church is more inline with Scripture than the Catholic Church.
 
Hi PhilVaz,
SS << First, it seems like you are saying the one that concedes the most to your position is the best? >>

I meant the one who actually tries to present all the data accurately by admitting the Church is the sole authentic true interpreter of Scripture is the best. That’s what Mathison does, that’s what Protestant scholars Schaff (Presbyterian) / Kelly (Anglican) / Pelikan (then Lutheran now Orthodox) also affirm, and that’s what Webster/King in their volumes try to hide and deny. Very dishonest of them.
I don’t think King and Webster denies the church is the sole authentic interpreter of Scripture, but where they would disagree with you is where is the church? You want to restrict it to those who are in union with the Bishop of Rome. I don’t believe that is true from a biblical or early church perspective.
SS << Second, I don’t think Webster and King claims all the church consider all the Apostles teaching to be confined to writing. As a matter of fact everyone knows some fathers argue for Apostolic teaching outside of Scripture (e.g… Jesus living to be over 50 years of age). The point is we cannot validate these apostolic teachings and fathers disagree over what these teachings are. Furthermore, not all fathers believed in this extra infallible source of teaching (e.g. Augustine) >>

Oh please, not the St. Irenaeus "50 year old Jesus" thing again, but I don’t want to get into that right now. 😃
If you are convinced by Mark Bonocore’s logic then you are in no position to talk about King and Webster.
What I cited from Yves Congar, and the conclusions of Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan in my article is what Webster/King ignore, and what Mathison for the most part concedes. That’s why I think Mathison is more honest and fair. He then trashes the Papacy in his book but I expect no less from a Reformed critic. 🙂
Granting for the sake of argument that King and Webster disagrees with Congar, Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan in this instance does this mean it is not the best work or they are being dishonest? If you have read King and Webster you know that they point out instances where Catholic apologists clearly got it wrong. Would that make them dishonest also? However, it is interesting if Mathison is so honest and King&Webster are so dishonest how is it possible for Mathison to offer such high praise for their work? He calls it the “most thorough and exhaustive modern treatment” of the topic. Mathison also states, “The authors back up their claims about the teaching of the early church with numerous citations and clearly show the discontinuity between apostolic Christianity and the doctrine of the modern Roman Catholic Church.”.
Webster/King deny the visible Church is the sole authentic true interpreter of Scripture, and Webster/King deny the Fathers believed that also. Webster/King say the Fathers affirm “Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e. it is self-interpreting” (see Webster/King, volume 3, page 9-10 point #11 of their twelve-point Introduction before all the citations of the Fathers). That’s the main difference between their “version” of sola scriptura, and Mathison’s “version.”
Scripture interprets Scripture is not a denial of the need of the church to interpret Scripture. What it means is that by comparing Scripture to Scripture we are able to arrive at the right interpretation. This does not mean the church is not needed, but that the church uses this method for its interpretation.
The only difference as I see it between Mathison and Catholicism / Orthodoxy at this point is locating the authority of the Church, and the nature of the visible Church (with a Papacy, etc) who does the interpreting of Scripture.
No when you say the church interprets Scripture you mean only the Bishop of Rome and those who are part of the teaching magisterium. King and Webster would disagree with this and so do I. I don’t take away the authority of my church, but that doesn’t entail granting it infallibility. Furthermore, my church teaching authority does not alleviate my responsibility for interpreting Scripture, because I will be judged for my beliefs not the church.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.
 
Hi Sola Scriptura,

Aa Christians, can we ONLY believe and practice what we find in Scripture?

Or can we believe or practice something NOT FOUND in Scripture as long as it does not CONTRADICT what we find in Scripture?

Thanks,
Gene
Hi Gene,

We can believe a lot of things besides what is found in Scripture. For example, I believe I’m 41 years old, I believe it will not rain tonight, and I believe there are 66 books that make up the canon of the Holy Bible. We also practice things not found in the bible. We practice passing the wine and cup around when partaking of the Lord’s Supper. We practice a certain form of liturgy. Neither of these are explicitly found in the Scriptures. Therefore, neither of these are considered infallible beliefs or practices.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.
 
#1 was the position of the Protestant Reformation and even has support in church fathers.
It is easy to say that the Church Fathers supported Sola Scriptura, but can you prove it from their own writings??

As a Protestant I waved around the myth that the Church Fathers were proponents of Sola Scriptura, but not only is this doctrine non-Biblical, it also has no basis within the realm of Patristic Literature.

It is quite clear that the Church Fathers were certainly not advocates of S.S.

Their writings clearly show that they believed the Scriptures must be interpreted in the light of Apostolic Tradition and Teaching:

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

“For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.” **Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202). **

“When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ’ (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God.” Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254)

These are but pin-pricks on the surface of Patristic Literature. To suggest that the Church Fathers supported Sola Scriptura is self-defeating and simply silly.
 
Hi Gene,

We can believe a lot of things besides what is found in Scripture. For example, I believe I’m 41 years old, I believe it will not rain tonight, and I believe there are 66 books that make up the canon of the Holy Bible. We also practice things not found in the bible. We practice passing the wine and cup around when partaking of the Lord’s Supper. We practice a certain form of liturgy. Neither of these are explicitly found in the Scriptures. Therefore, neither of these are considered infallible beliefs or practices.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.
That is not the point. What Gene is saying is that NONE of the Catholic Church’s Tradition contradicts the Scriptures, and is bolstered by the fact that it has been passed down from the Bishops. St. Ignatius of Antioch (112 A.D.) emphatically states that we should revere the Bishop as we would our Lord Jesus.
 
40.png
SolaScriptura:
Hi Gene,

We can believe a lot of things besides what is found in Scripture. For example, I believe I’m 41 years old, I believe it will not rain tonight, and I believe there are 66 books that make up the canon of the Holy Bible. We also practice things not found in the bible. We practice passing the wine and cup around when partaking of the Lord’s Supper. We practice a certain form of liturgy. Neither of these are explicitly found in the Scriptures. Therefore,** neither of these are considered infallible beliefs** or practices.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.
At least you admit that the Canon is not infallible. 😛
 
I meant the one who actually tries to present all the data accurately by admitting the Church is the sole authentic true interpreter of Scripture is the best. That’s what Mathison does, that’s what Protestant scholars Schaff (Presbyterian) / Kelly (Anglican) / Pelikan (then Lutheran now Orthodox) also affirm, and that’s what Webster/King in their volumes try to hide and deny. Very dishonest of them.

The only difference as I see it between Mathison and Catholicism / Orthodoxy at this point is locating the authority of the Church, and the nature of the visible Church (with a Papacy, etc) who does the interpreting of Scripture.
PhilVaz, sorry I missed your original posts about Mathison, Schaff, Kelly and Pelikan. What are their first names, and what are the titles of the books they wrote? I’m especially interested in reading Mathison. He and Sproul sound like the 2 best Protestant authors in terms of Sola Scriptura so far. I want to read them.
 
You want to restrict it to those who are in union with the Bishop of Rome. I don’t believe that is true from a biblical or early church perspective.
The Bible is very clear when it states that St. Peter was to be the leader of the Church and that his office would perpetuate after his death. Take Isaiah 22:22, in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. The passage further states that the “prime minister” of Israel will fall astray, but his office (the keys) would remain, even if he fell into personal faults.

The Early Church made it unequivocally clear that the Episcopal See in Rome held precedence over all other sees:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” **Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180). **

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” **Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256). **

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” **Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252). **

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."** Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342). **

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” **Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375). **

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” **Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393). **
 
Hi Blue Serenity, 🙂

I believe we follow the Bible as much as non-Catholics, plus the traditions. Can you name something that we go against the Bible and traditions?
I’ll be brief as to not derail this thread but Catholics believe they can’t know their salvation when it states it ever so plainly in scripture:
*Luke 1:76-77 And you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, **to give his people knowledge of salvation *through the forgiveness of their sins.
 
Sola Scriptura,

I said “as Christians,” so obviously I was referring to spiritual things, not personal history or the weather.

Let me give you an example. I ask the saints in heaven to pray for me, just as I ask the saints on earth to pray for me. This practice is not contradicted by anything in Scripture.

What do you think?

Gene
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top