Protestant defense of sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter jennyhay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for a critique of my critical thinking, but I’m still looking for quotes of this from Webster/King:
Did you check Vol 3? If so do you agree that by Scripture interprets Scripture they mean the same thing as the analogy of faith?

I will respond later to the rest of you post when I get home and have a chance to consult their work.
 
Hmmm … that is interesting. So do you accept the Feenyism view or the other Catholic view?
The Feenyism view is not compatible with the Catholic Faith. I do not hold to that view. I hold to the view of the Church.
 
SS << Anyhow, let me answer your new more directed question. It is the church that everyone belongs to. For me it is my denomination. For you it is Rome. For the Eastern Orthodox it is their church. For Anglicans it is theirs. >>

OK, I get it now. There is no visible Church with authority to interpret Scripture, and there is no visible Church to determine orthodoxy from heresy. We don’t have to listen to any particular church, we can pick our church. Or we can create our own church. That’s what I thought you believed, but just wanted to make sure. 👍

But you forgot some: for the Jehovah’s Witnesses it is their church, for the Mormons it is their church, for the Unitarian Universalists it is their church, for the First Church of the Doors, it is their church. For any of the 30,000+ denominations, it is their church. Or do we indeed have some standards outside Scripture alone that determine what a Christian is to believe? Yes we do, the Creeds, and the Ecumenical Councils, right? If so, we’re moving in the right direction (see quotes I gave earlier from Mathison).

Phil P
 
SS << Did you check Vol 3? If so do you agree that by Scripture interprets Scripture they mean the same thing as the analogy of faith? >>

I would have to re-read it. The analogy of faith to a Catholic means something different to a Protestant. If the Fathers sometimes suggested that “Scripture interprets Scripture” they did this in the context of the Church having the final authority to interpret Scripture and define doctrine. The Protestant limits the “analogy of faith” to Scripture alone. The Fathers did not do this.

Webster/King do not include any citations of the Fathers about the Church having authority to interpret Scripture. And those citations are numerous. For example, here is what they leave out on St. Athanasius:

St. Athanasius on Scripture, Tradition, Church authority

Phil P
 
I know this wasn’t directed at me but perhaps what the apostles taught and that which we are required to believe is found in scripture?

You are probably aware of the fact that many of your Traditions, such as the immaculate conception, don’t appear on the scene until centuries after the apostles.

There is no proof that the Corinthians, Galatians, etc. ever heard of such things as the immaculate conception, treasury of merit, etc.
Indeed there is no proof. Yet that same argument (there is no proof) can easily be used for the “historical” Jesus and other atheistic myths. We believe what we believe based on both implicit and explicit evidence.

The Implicit evidence is quite clear concerning the Immaculate Conception and other “papist” doctrines. Yet this is not the forum for this, as you indubitably know. I am a High School student and I have limited time to defend the faith that saved me from the un-historical, un-Biblical, and anti-Apostolic morass of Reform Christianity that I once believed in.

I am here to debate Sola Scriptura. And in the spirit of this, I challenge you to bolster Sola Scriptura with the Bible-Alone.
 
I am here to debate Sola Scriptura. And in the spirit of this, I challenge you to bolster Sola Scriptura with the Bible-Alone.
And the Gauntlet has been thrown…
 
I used to believe firmly in Eternal Security but it is refuted by the Bible constantly.

Take the Gospel of Luke for Example:

[11] Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
[12] The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved.
[13] And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
[14] And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.
[15] And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience. (Luke 8:11-13)

[42] And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.
[45] But if that servant says to himself, `My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk,
[46] the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful. (Luke 12:42-46)

Church Fathers:

“Watch for your life’s sake…for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last time.” Didache, 16 (A.D. 90).

“And as many of them, he added, as have repented, shall have their dwelling in the tower. And those of them who have been slower in repenting shall dwell within the walls. And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall utterly perish…Yet they also, being naturally good, on hearing my commandments, purified themselves, and soon repented. Their dwelling, accordingly, was in the tower. But if any one relapse into strife, he will be east out of the tower, and will lose his life.” Hermas, The Shephard, 3:8:7 (A.D. 155).

“[T]hat eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition.” Justin Martyr,(A.D. 156).

“Now, in the beginning the spirit was a constant companion of the soul, but the spirit forsook it because it was not willing to follow. Yet, retaining as it were a spark of its power…But the Spirit of God is not with all, but, taking up its abode with those who live justly, and intimately combining with the soul, by prophecies it announced hidden things to other souls.” Tatian the Syrian, To the Greeks, 13 (A.D. 175).

“Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more have dominion over Him; but the Son shall come in the glory of the Father, requiring from His stewards and dispensers the money which He had entrusted to them, with usury; and from those to whom He had given most shall He demand most. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, ‘For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, who, when thou wert a wild olive tree, wert grafted into the fatness of the olive tree, and wert made a partaker of its fatness.’” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:27:2 (A.D. 180).

“But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. But if it is of necessity that God grants us the symbol of death, then He does so unwilling. But who permits a gift to be permanently retained which he has granted unwillingly? For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? Is not this gift taken away from many?” Tertullian, On Repentance, 6 (A.D. 204).

“Confession is the beginning of glory, not the full desert of the crown; nor does it perfect our praise, but it initiates our dignity; and since it is written, ‘He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved,’ whatever has been before the end is a step by which we ascend to the summit of salvation, not a terminus wherein the full result of the ascent is already gained.” Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 21 (A.D. 251).
 
Hey Joey,

Sure, take your word for it, right? Well, just as soon as you take my word for it that sola Scriptura and sola Fide are there, you just have to recognize it for what it is. Glad we settled that 😉

Grace and Peace,
S.S.
At the risk of speaking for Joey, why don’t you show us that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura.

Surely if we are to believe that the Bible is the sole judge of Tradition and absolutely sufficient for Christian doctrine, then the Bible would say that no???
 
Anton << I am here to debate Sola Scriptura. And in the spirit of this, I challenge you to bolster Sola Scriptura with the Bible-Alone. >>

Oh I love to quote this paragraph from James White:

“…the doctrine [of sola scriptura] speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? …You will never find anyone saying, ‘During times of enscripturation – that is, when new revelation was being given – sola scriptura was operational.’ Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is ‘sufficient.’ It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, ‘See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!’ Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?” (James White’s 1997 article on the Bereans and Sola Scriptura)

BTW, Mr. SolaScriptura has pretty much admitted the same when he said sola scriptura was not true, was not working, does not apply, etc while Jesus and the apostles were walking the earth or penning their inspired epistles decades later. From post #136 in this thread (I’ve gone back over his posts, I missed this initially):

SS << The church was never without the Scriptures, because they had the O.T. Scriptures. Furthermore, I’m speaking of the church today. The Scriptures were not the sole infallible rule of faith when revelation was still being given or when Jesus Christ was walking the earth. So the point still stands. >>

Well, thanks for the admission. It became true somehow, sometime, someway after the apostles died, I presume?

So it is definitely not in the Bible itself according to White and Mr. SS. That’s already been admitted. We can therefore toss out 2 Tim 3:15-17, 1 Cor 4:6, 2 Peter 1:20-21, or any other “biblical” proof text as applicable to sola scriptura. The doctrine was not true or applicable while revelation was being given. 👍

BTW, David King in volume 1 of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith has exactly two proof texts: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. With one reference to 1 Cor 4:6 (but no exegesis) on volume 1, page 127. That’s it. He does exegete 2 Thess 2:15 and others too.

Phil P
 
The Feenyism view is not compatible with the Catholic Faith. I do not hold to that view. I hold to the view of the Church.
Yeah, the Feenyites claim they hold to the view of the Church also :eek:

Take care my friend.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Where do they say that the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture? I don’t see that in their volumes.
As I figured. King says the exact same thing I have been saying. I quickly looked at the table of contents and went to the section on the, “Common Misrepresentations of sola Scriptura”. Here are two quick things King says:
Holy Scripture:
What sola Scriptura presupposes is that there is no need for the magisteruim of the Roman communion to define dogma infallibly. We readily submit to duly constituted authority in Christ’s Church, but we reject an institution that has made void the commandments of God by the traditions of men( Matt. 15:1-9; Mk. 7:1-13) ( Volume 1. pg 259)

Protestants do not deny, but affirm the biblical basis, and thus the necessity, for the teaching office of the Church. What we deny is the existence of and necessity for an infallible magisterium.( Volume 1, pg 263 )
You have once again demonstrated what I have been saying about you all along. You read for prooftexts and not truth. King clearly believes the church has the authority to interpret Scripture, as a Teaching Elder in the PCA it would foolish of him to believe otherwise.
 
It stands for (the often misunderstood) “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
Although I’m sure you are a nice person that is just not true and I am a bit angry. Outside Jesus Christ there is no salvation. You make it sound like exactly the thing Protestants believe about Catholics. That you have another gospel and that is you are saved by the Church. That just ain’t the case.
 
Which stills begs the question SS, whose Church? If you say anyone’s Church that gets into private interpretation which the Reformed reject in favor of Scripture interpreting Scripture.

So if it’s proper to interpret Scripture with Scripture, even there at that point should not be thousands of opinions to say what it says. If as you say Scripture interprets Scripture then all should agree and they don’t which shows the folly of Sola Scriptura.
 
SS << Did you check Vol 3? If so do you agree that by Scripture interprets Scripture they mean the same thing as the analogy of faith? >>

I would have to re-read it. The analogy of faith to a Catholic means something different to a Protestant. If the Fathers sometimes suggested that “Scripture interprets Scripture” they did this in the context of the Church having the final authority to interpret Scripture and define doctrine. The Protestant limits the “analogy of faith” to Scripture alone. The Fathers did not do this.
You are still misunderstanding the point. The analogy of faith is a principle of interpretation. It says nothing about who uses the analogy of faith, therefore it means the same thing to both groups. The difference is that the Catholic position believes only the teaching magisterium should use it. So there is a difference in the application of the principle. To say Protestants limits the “analogy of faith” to Scripture alone doesn’t make sense. Here are some samples from Volume on the fathers use of Scripture interpret Scripture by King and Webster. Once again it is clear that they mean the interpretative principle for Scripture.
a few fathers on Scripture interprets Scripture:
Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379): Whatsoever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places of holy Scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in other places.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser

Chrysostom (349-407): Verse 11. “For we which live are also delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in us in our mortal flesh.” For every where when he has said any thing obscure, he interprets himself again. So he has done here also, giving a clear interpretation of this which I have cited. NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 9.

Chrysostom (349-407): These words are a particular indication of the inspired author’s longing, seeing what has already been achieved and the world’s being led towards truth. Hence he employs an exhortatory style in his manner of expression. It is customary with inferiors, remember, when moved with ardor for their betters, to employ these expressions. In the cause of truth, gentleness and righteousness. He uses the qualification of truth. Do you see how Scripture interprets itself, showing the victory to be intellectual and spiritual? How, that is, the one made mention of weapons, sword and bows, here makes mention of gentleness? Robert Charles Hill, trans., St John Chrysostom: Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 1, Psalm 45 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), p. 268.

Jerome (347-420): Some may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter . . . FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 6 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 45.

Augustine (354-430): Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere. NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 6, §8.
Webster/King do not include any citations of the Fathers about the Church having authority to interpret Scripture. And those citations are numerous. For example, here is what they leave out on St. Athanasius:
It seems obvious that if the fathers are part of a church and they are interpreting Scripture then one must believe they believe the church has the authority to interpret Scripture. Like I said before they don’t believe that right goes to pagans and not the church. Now if a father only believes the Roman magisterium has the authority to interpret Scripture you may have a point, but otherwise you are swinging at the wind.
 
Which stills begs the question SS, whose Church? If you say anyone’s Church that gets into private interpretation which the Reformed reject in favor of Scripture interpreting Scripture.
Of course it is the church you are a member of. However, the same is true for Catholicism. One can ask whose infallible church? Your church, the JWs, the Mormons, the Eastern Orthodox? The problem with most Catholics apologetics is that they don’t realize the same argument they used can be turned against them. Furthermore, we all use private interpretation. You guys are using it like gang busters on this board everyday. It was used when I was accused of being “Completely Wrong” about the canon and I was the one who was quoting Catholic sources (i.e. The New Catholic Encyclopedia ). The Catholics claim to not use private interpretation is myth.
So if it’s proper to interpret Scripture with Scripture, even there at that point should not be thousands of opinions to say what it says. If as you say Scripture interprets Scripture then all should agree and they don’t which shows the folly of Sola Scriptura.
Just because any church can use Scripture to interpret Scripture it doesn’t mean that all their interpretations are valid or will be the same. The same was true for the fathers who used the principle but came to different conclusions. Also the same is true for Catholicism. Do all churches that use Tradition and Scripture come to the same conclusion? Of course not, which is why there were so many splits in the church before the Reformation and even now the East and the West are split. We also have the Old Catholic Church, the Feenyites, Sedevacantists, Traditionalist, Modernists, …
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
SS << The church was never without the Scriptures, because they had the O.T. Scriptures. Furthermore, I’m speaking of the church today. The Scriptures were not the sole infallible rule of faith when revelation was still being given or when Jesus Christ was walking the earth. So the point still stands. >>

Well, thanks for the admission. It became true somehow, sometime, someway after the apostles died, I presume?
It is not an admission I’m ashamed of , because it is true. It is obvious that if sola Scripture means the only infallible rule of faith then that is not true at the time of the Jesus Christ on earth and the Apostles. However, once those individuals are no longer alive it is equally true that the only remaining infallible rule of faith is the Scriptures and therefore sola Scriptura.
40.png
PhilVaz:
So it is definitely not in the Bible itself according to White and Mr. SS. That’s already been admitted. We can therefore toss out 2 Tim 3:15-17, 1 Cor 4:6, 2 Peter 1:20-21, or any other “biblical” proof text as applicable to sola scriptura. The doctrine was not true or applicable while revelation was being given.

BTW, David King in volume 1 of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith has exactly two proof texts: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. With one reference to 1 Cor 4:6 (but no exegesis) on volume 1, page 127. That’s it. He does exegete 2 Thess 2:15 and others too.
Once again PhilVaz, you failed to understand the point being made. David King used those two proof texts to prove things about Scripture that Catholics try to deny. That is that the Scriptures are sufficient and the Roman claim that 2 Peter 1:20-21 is denying private interpretation. Scripture being the only infallible source for the faith is a necessary and logical consequence that there is no other infallible source in the possession of the church.
 
At the risk of speaking for Joey, why don’t you show us that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura.

Surely if we are to believe that the Bible is the sole judge of Tradition and absolutely sufficient for Christian doctrine, then the Bible would say that no???
Actually, I’m tired of answering all the many questions and charges coming from all over the place. I’ve laid out my case for sola Scriptura a number of times and no one answers the questions I ask. I asked you previously to document what were the teaching the Apostles were talking about in 2 Thess 2:15 that is not contained in Scripture. You went silent. But now you are back demanding I answer more of your questions.
 
Although I’m sure you are a nice person that is just not true and I am a bit angry. Outside Jesus Christ there is no salvation. You make it sound like exactly the thing Protestants believe about Catholics. That you have another gospel and that is you are saved by the Church. That just ain’t the case.
As I said (which you even quoted) that it is often misunderstood. You say that “outside of Jesus Christ there is no salvation” and since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ (see Eph 5:23-33) the two go hand in hand, since you cannot seperate the Head from the Body. “This is a great mystery…” and so it should be reserved for a thread of its own.

No need to get angry brother. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top