Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[Antonius_Lupus]

Sola, the Bible says that we should hold fast to the traditions which have been brought to us either by letter or word of mouth. I hope you can agree with this. Bible says that faith and good works are needed for salvation, so traditionally we hold to that. Same with Marian Dogma. Bible doesn’t explicitly say we should honor her and pray to her, yet we logically come to that tradition by looking at not only at what Jesus and St. Paul say, but also with the Early Church Fathers.

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

AMEN

 

[mikeledes]

Agreed but it’s the only source I’d trust for complete Truth.

So I guess you also put complete trust on the Church that discerned which books were inspired and shich ones were not. A Church that did not believe in Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

No, I will not be trying harder. You need to take a logic course to learn what is and isn’t a valid argument and rebuttal.

Why do you feel the need to criticize my logic? Have you forgotten 1 Peter 3:15???

My apologies if I have offended you my sibling in Christ. I simply don’t see how asking you to show the sufficiency of Sola Scriptura from the Bible-alone is an invalid argument.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Well, I hope you didn’t “debate” like you are doing now.

Take a look at this verse and get back to me:

1 Peter 3:15-----but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with **gentleness **and reverence;

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

So I guess you also put complete trust on the Church that discerned which books were inspired and shich ones were not. A Church that did not believe in Sola Scriptura

An excellent point brother Michael!

God Bless!!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Imagine, if you will, John Calvin, Bible in hand, visiting the church of Corinth in the year 125. Calvin notices some practices in the church of which he has never read specific mention in Scripture, and he rebukes the church for “adding to God’s word.”

On of the presbyters approaches Calvin and says, “Have you not read in Paul’s first epistle to this church, in the passage about the Lord’s Supper, ‘And the rest I will set in order when I come’? (1 Corinthians 11:34) Dear brother, I was a young man when the apostle visited this church. These church practices you condemn came from the apostle’s very lips. Are you greater than Paul? We also have in our possession Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians. He commands them to continue in the traditions, whether delivered by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Are we to obey you or the apostle?”

from “A Defense of Roman Catholic Doctrine Against Reformed Protestantism” by Gregory A. Krehbiel as quoted in Not By Scripture Alone, Robert A. Sungenis, p.48.

 

[PhilVaz]

OK, responding to a note from SS about David King and the PCA. Now we’re getting somewhere. My next question would be:

Who has the authority to interpret Scripture and define doctrine? The "Split P’s" or the Catholic Church centered in Rome ?

Anglican J.N.D. Kelly provides the historical answer to that question:

“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

Now if you want to argue Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism, fine then give up being Presbyterian, become Orthodox, and we can debate it from there.

Phil P

 

[lak611]

OK, responding to a note from SS about David King and the PCA. Now we’re getting somewhere. My next question would be:

Who has the authority to interpret Scripture and define doctrine? The "Split P’s" or the Catholic Church centered in Rome ?

Anglican J.N.D. Kelly provides the historical answer to that question:

“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

Now if you want to argue Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism, fine then give up being Presbyterian, become Orthodox, and we can debate it from there.

Phil P

Nice post, Phil!

 

[PhilVaz]

Randy << On of the presbyters approaches Calvin and says, "Have you not read in Paul’s first epistle to this church, in the passage about the Lord’s Supper, ‘And the rest I will set in order when I come’? (1 Corinthians 11:34) >>

BTW, that’s an interesting verse relevant to sola scriptura. St. Thomas Aquinas recognized this, centuries before the Protestant Reformation he wrote:

SUMMA THEOLOGICA Third Part, Question 64, Article 2 on “Whether the Sacraments are instituted by God alone?”

OBJECTION 1: For those things which God has instituted are delivered to us in Holy Scripture. But in the Sacraments certain things are done which are nowhere mentioned in Holy Scripture. For instance, the chrism with which men are confirmed, the oil with which the priests are anointed, and many others, both words and actions, which we employ in the Sacraments. Therefore, the Sacraments were not instituted by God alone.

REPLY 1: Human institutions observed in the Sacraments are not essential to the Sacrament, but belong to the solemnity which is added to the Sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those things that are essential to the Sacrament are instituted by Christ Himself, who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the Apostles, according to the saying of the Apostle : ‘THE REST I WILL SET IN ORDER WHEN I COME’ (1 Cor 11:34).

St. Thomas Aquinas and sola scriptura

Phil P

 

[Reformed1]

Imagine, if you will, John Calvin, Bible in hand, visiting the church of Corinth in the year 125. Calvin notices some practices in the church of which he has never read specific mention in Scripture, and he rebukes the church for “adding to God’s word.”

On of the presbyters approaches Calvin and says, “Have you not read in Paul’s first epistle to this church, in the passage about the Lord’s Supper, ‘And the rest I will set in order when I come’? (1 Corinthians 11:34) Dear brother, I was a young man when the apostle visited this church. These church practices you condemn came from the apostle’s very lips. Are you greater than Paul? We also have in our possession Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians. He commands them to continue in the traditions, whether delivered by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Are we to obey you or the apostle?”

from “A Defense of Roman Catholic Doctrine Against Reformed Protestantism” by Gregory A. Krehbiel as quoted in Not By Scripture Alone, Robert A. Sungenis, p.48.

What exactly did Paul teach the Corinthians or Thessalonians that isn’t recorded in scriptue? Can you provide the documentation for these beliefs or practices please?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What exactly did Paul teach the Corinthians or Thessalonians that isn’t recorded in scriptue? Can you provide the documentation for these beliefs or practices please?

For these things, I would refer you to the men who heard him: men like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, and to works such as the Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas among others.

For you see, if we had a written record from the hand of Paul himself, then these additional writings would probably have been canonized like everything else we have from Paul.

However, these teachings of Paul were written not on parchment but on the hearts and minds of those who heard him with their own ears. These men passed them on to those who were, in turn, able to teach others. (2 Timothy 2:2)

Over time, the early Church did record more and more of the traditions to which they had been “holding fast” since the earliest days, and we find these things in the writings of the Early Church Fathers referenced above. This, of course, is the subject of another thread.

Returning to the defense of sola scriptura, how does Calvin respond? How do you respond?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

So I guess you also put complete trust on the Church that discerned which books were inspired and shich ones were not. A Church that did not believe in Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
Michael

That is not the same Church that exists today since the Church is made up of men.
We believe that the Church at the time the Bible was written, around 400 A.D., was inspired by the Holy Spirit, since the Bible is God’s Word and God wanted it to be perfect and without error.

 

[KathleenElsie]

So I guess you also put complete trust on the Church that discerned which books were inspired and which ones were not. A Church that did not believe in Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
Michael

Thank you I never thought of this in that way. I will use that as it is simple .

 

[SolaScriptura]

Because of a few long quotes from Augustine this will be in two parts.

PhilVaz:

OK, responding to a note from SS about David King and the PCA. Now we’re getting somewhere. My next question would be:

Who has the authority to interpret Scripture and define doctrine?
The "Split P’s" or the Catholic Church centered in Rome ?

Everyone in the church has the right and responsibility to interpret the Scriptures. The process of officially defining doctrine for a church is the responsibility of its leaders. So the answer is both, and both will be held accountable for what they teach. Notice Jesus never told the different sects during his day that they didn’t have the authority to interpret Scripture, but instead they misinterpret them to their own destruction.

PhilVaz:

Anglican J.N.D. Kelly provides the historical answer to that question:

“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

Now if you want to argue Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism, fine then give up being Presbyterian, become Orthodox, and we can debate it from there.

Phil P

History only tells us what took place, not if it was right or wrong. The Jews during Jesus had some pretty unanimous traditions going back to Moses

However, if Kelly quoting Augustine establishes truth then it creates more problem for you than me. Here is Kelly on Augustine in reference to the Eucharist:

This leads us to the vital question how he conceives of the Eucharistic body. There is no suggestion in his writing of the conversion theory sponsored by Gregory of Nyssa and Ambrose; there is indeed no reason to suppose that he was acquainted with either the Oratio Catechetica or the De mysteriis. His thought moves, as we should expect, much more along the lines laid down by Tertullian and Cyprian. For example, he can speak of ‘the banquet in which He presented and handed down to His disciples the figure ( figuram) of His body and blood’. But he goes further than his predecessors in formulating a doctrine which, while realist through and through, is also frankly spiritualizing. In the first place, he makes it clear that the body consumed in the eucharist is not strictly identical with Christ’s historical body, and represents Him as saying, ‘You must understand what I have said in a spiritual sense. You are not going to eat this body which you see or drink that blood which those who will crucify me are going to shed’. The historical body ascended in its integrity to heaven. In any case the Eucharistic flesh is not like ‘flesh rent asunder in a corpse or sold in the meat-market’. This crude idea was characteristic of the Capharnaites. Secondly, and more positively, the gift which the eucharist conveys is a gift of life. This is a spiritual gift, and the eating and drinking are spiritual processes. **The Eucharistic body is not the sensible flesh; rather we receive the essence of this flesh, vis. the spirit which quickens it. Sometimes he carries this spiritualizing tendency to its limits, as when he says, “Why make ready your teeth and your belly? Believe, and you have eaten’; or again, “To believe in Him is to eat living bread. He who believes eats, and is invisibly filled, because he is reborn invisibly.’ His real point, however, is that Christ’s body and blood are not consumed physically and materially; what is consumed in this way is the bread and wine. ** The body and blood are veritably received by the communicant, but are received sacramentally or, as one might express it, in figura. (Early Christian Doctrines, Chapter XVI, 5. The Eucharistic Presence J.N.D. Kelly, Revised Edition )

… continued in next post

 

[SolaScriptura]

… continuing from previous post

Quoting Augustine to establish a universal truth from history is ironic, because Augustine clearly taught against such a thing. For Augustine if you could prove your doctrine from Scripture then it could not command obedience. So based on Augustine I would ask you to prove only the church centered in Rome has the authority to interpret and define doctrine. Augustine believed only the Scriptures were infallible. I know a man with all your research already know this but here are a few quotes for others that are reading.

On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!” NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82, Chapter 1, §3.

Sounds like Luther(i.e. convinced by canonical writings Scripture] or reason ) One more from Augustine since I like you.

Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. Ye mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the holy Church, that ye may receive health therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary (ecumenical) Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? NPNF1: Vol. IV, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapter 3.

Augustine was not with Protestants on all issues, but he is definitely with us on this one. Only the Scriptures are infallible, contra any Bishop( that would include the Pope ) and even ecumenical Councils.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[E.E.N.S]

That is not the same Church that exists today since the Church is made up of men.
We believe that the Church at the time the Bible was written, around 400 A.D., was inspired by the Holy Spirit, since the Bible is God’s Word and God wanted it to be perfect and without error.

Since we know that the Church would never have fallen completely away (cf. Matt 16:18), tell me then which Church it was that gave us the Canon of Scripture.

Matt 16:
18 And I say to thee: Thatt thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

History clearly shows that it was the same Catholic Church that gave us the Canon as still exists today.

 

[KathleenElsie]

DOUAY-RHEIMS ST MATTHEW ch16 verse27 For the Son of man shall come in the Glory of his Father with his angles: and then will he render to every man according to his works.

So how does SS explain this statement?

 

[mercygate]

That is not the same Church that exists today since the Church is made up of men.
We believe that the Church at the time the Bible was written, around 400 A.D., was inspired by the Holy Spirit, since the Bible is God’s Word and God wanted it to be perfect and without error.

By your own argument here, the Church that codified the canon was “not the same church” as the church of the Apostles because by the year 400, the visible church was “made of of men.” In other words, by this reasoning, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to accept the canon of Scripture as inspired, much less inerrant.

 

[Reformed1]

For these things, I would refer you to the men who heard him: men like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, and to works such as the Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas among others.

For you see, if we had a written record from the hand of Paul himself, then these additional writings would probably have been canonized like everything else we have from Paul.

However, these teachings of Paul were written not on parchment but on the hearts and minds of those who heard him with their own ears. These men passed them on to those who were, in turn, able to teach others. (2 Timothy 2:2)

Over time, the early Church did record more and more of the traditions to which they had been “holding fast” since the earliest days, and we find these things in the writings of the Early Church Fathers referenced above. This, of course, is the subject of another thread.

Returning to the defense of sola scriptura, how does Calvin respond? How do you respond?

That’s the problem I have with tradition. Many of your traditions don’t show up on the scene until centuries after the apostles and there doesn’t appear to be a clear way to tie all of the different beliefs of your church to the apostles. It may be easy to claim the “tradition” is apostolic but it is another matter to demonstrate that the “tradition” is in fact apostolic.

To the best of my knowledge, your church has not officially defined a single word uttered by Jesus or any of the apostles other than what is found in scripture but yet insists certain traditions were apostolic. This is confusing to me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Folks-

This ought to be really easy. Just show us the passage in the Bible that says the the Bible Alone is the “sole infallible rule of faith.”

Explicity. Implicitly. Cobble something together if you have to. Do your best. We Catholics are listening intently to what you have to tell us. Chapter and verse, please.

Tell us you haven’t pinned your theological hopes to an unscriptural “tradition of men.”