Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[Safia]

Looks like I forgot to mention here, too – eep – I always try to cite. I pulled from John Salza.

 

[mrjinx777]

Hi tqualey,

you would note that I said that their teaching, tradition, practice were done in accordance with scripture not against. I have place in bracket Old Testament . I am keenly aware of the new testament not being written at that time.

Hi, Mrjinx,

All of this to show that the Apostles taught according to Scripture?

The only real snag in this argument you are putting forward is that the first word of New Testament scripture had not yet been written by 47AD (wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earliest_book_written_in_the_New_Testament) So, the only thing that could be reviewed by these early Catholic converts and Jews was the Old Testament.

SS is not proven by any of the text you provided. The real issue is that not everything is written down in Scripture. And, as I have previously told you, John tells us this twice - just in case we were not paying attention the first time!

But here is one you may want to look at carefully - it is from this Sunday’s Gospel (4th Sunday in Ordinary Time according to the Latin Rite). Mark 1:21-28. Now, what I found interesting is that Jesus is just starting off His Public Ministry - and He goes to Capernaum and stays there one week BEFORE going to local synagogue to preach and expel a demon. So, what do you think He did during the week He stayed there … where did He say? Did He pray? do any miracles? teach the Apostles? Say and do nothing for a week? Nothing is said - but, He had to do something to keep the interest of His Apostles.

Ultimately, finding a justification for everything through Scripture is going to lead to failure and frustration because Scripture only has part of the answer. Besides, there is this problem with personal interpretation of Scripture - and how we have 30,000+ Protestant groups today. None of them can agree on the fundamentals! The proof is right there in the yellow pages of your phone book under ‘Church, Protestant’.

God bless

 

[Newsy]

Hi tqualey,

you would note that I said that their teaching, tradition, practice were done in accordance with scripture not against. I have place in bracket Old Testament . I am keenly aware of the new testament not being written at that time.

But this is still incorrect. Eating with Gentiles and eating animals that were considered unclean both contradict the OT scripture.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx777,

Newsy beat me to the response … … so let me say, “Amen!” to that statement.

Maybe it is just that you do not see the hole that you have dug for yourself. And, it is only getting deeper! Honest.

SS is a failed ‘tradition of men’ for three basic reasons -

1.) There was no Canon of Scripture until about 400AD - so, the ‘very early SS believers’ (if there were any) would have been hard pressed for those hundreds of years when there was active persecution from the Roman Empire to maintain their faith.

2.) Throughout the OT, the Law of Moses, circumcision, unclean animals, ritual washings - were all an integral part of Judiasm. Now, we may think that the early Catholic Church (Christianity) was a break-away subset of the Jewish faith … the Jewish leaders did at first. But, notice: the only item that remains from the Law of Moses is the Ten Commandments. Actually, these are all ‘Jewish sins’… For a list of what those who follow Christ are to do, as recorded in Matthew 5:1-12, check out this link:
veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_5

3.) There is no SS without private interpretation of Scripture (condemned by Peter [2Peter 1:20]) and it is this private interpretation that trashes the Word of God - and why there are 30,000+ Protestant groups with their own private interpretation - all trashing the Word of God.

I would appreciate it if you were to pick one and tell me why you think it is wrong.

God bless

Hi tqualey,

you would note that I said that their teaching, tradition, practice were done in accordance with scripture not against. I have place in bracket Old Testament . I am keenly aware of the new testament not being written at that time.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Newsy,

Great post!

God bless

But this is still incorrect. Eating with Gentiles and eating animals that were considered unclean both contradict the OT scripture.

 

[Newsy]

Hi, Newsy,

Great post!

God bless

Thanks. Sorry I was so quick to respond

 

[Skybench]

Where did you find your definition of sola scriptura?

That’s fine. Lutherans, for example, are perfectly willing to accept that the early creeds, and councils, and even our own confessions, while not at the level of scripture, are important to the instruction of the faith. Your first two sentences state the Lutheran position; that scripture is the final norm, to which all teachers and teachings, and doctrines are held accountable.

Yes. the Church. From Augsburg:* Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. *
JonNc
You totaly miss the point.

That’s not the intent of sola scriptura.

And how does does this dispute sola scriptura?

And how does this relate to sola scriptura?

Sola scriptura doesn’t say this.

I was never taught this either.

No. Sola scriptura is apractice of hermeunetics of the Church, and no more “subjective” than the scripture/Tradition/Magisterium hermeunetc model. It is still subject to human beings interpreting.

Irrelevent to the intent of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[mrjinx777]

Newsy,

I think you are fast to answer without considering that the apostle were quoting from the old testament.
Messiah’s death on the cross was to bring to an end the old covenant and his blood remember ratified the new covenant. all this is clear from the old testament, from which the apostles taught, and PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophesied that the gentiles will be a part of his people.

Maybe you would want me to take the time to highlight the so many scriptures. scripture (new testament) never said Peter or Paul or the Gentiles they were associating with were eating unclean animals ,you are making an assumption - which is not based on the context.

But this is still incorrect. Eating with Gentiles and eating animals that were considered unclean both contradict the OT scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

Newsy,

I think you are fast to answer without considering that the apostle were quoting from the old testament.
Messiah’s death on the cross was to bring to an end the old covenant and his blood remember ratified the new covenant. all this is clear from the old testament, from which the apostles taught, and PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophesied that the gentiles will be a part of his people.

Maybe you would want me to take the time to highlight the so many scriptures. scripture (new testament) never said Peter or Paul or the Gentiles they were associating with were eating unclean animals ,you are making an assumption - which is not based on the context.

Are stating the Jews were allowed to eat uncean food and with Gentiles under the OT?

 

[Newsy]

Newsy,

I think you are fast to answer without considering that the apostle were quoting from the old testament.
Messiah’s death on the cross was to bring to an end the old covenant and his blood remember ratified the new covenant. all this is clear from the old testament, from which the apostles taught, and PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophesied that the gentiles will be a part of his people.

Maybe you would want me to take the time to highlight the so many scriptures. scripture (new testament) never said Peter or Paul or the Gentiles they were associating with were eating unclean animals ,you are making an assumption - which is not based on the context.

You said "you would note that I said that their teaching, tradition, practice were done in accordance with scripture not against. I have place in bracket Old Testament ". So I was pointing out the error in your statement. I understand what you are saying in the post I have quoted, but that is not what you said in the earlier post. You were trying to say that the Apostles never contradicted Scripture, the OT, I am just showing you that is a false statement. If it was understood that the OT was completed, that all animals were now clean, why is Peter’s vision recorded in Acts? If this was common knowledge, then it would not need to be recorded. As for eating with Gentiles, that is why the early Christians were shocked at first reaction, if this was understood then why were they shocked? Where does it say that these thing changed before the Apostles changed them? I believe they were acting in accordance with God’s will, but they were working against what Jews were taught.

You may want to keep in mind that Jesus did not end the Old Covenant, but He COMPLETED the Old Covenant. There is a difference.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx777,

I am not entirely sure what your real agenda is - but, you are honestly stumbling all over this SS issue bring up even more problems! While it is interesting to watch someone make an argument for you … I do not believe this is your intention… So, maybe it would be good if you just took one item and addressed it in depth.

Your misapplied comment to Newsy was really not a smooth way to start … but, since you apparently want to address the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross - that is a good place to begin…

There are numerous references of the promise of God to send a Savior and that the Savior would die that we might live. Here is a nice Protestant site for you: biblestudysite.com/foretold.htm But, please note - SS implies that everyone can interpret Scripture as they wish. From a strictly historical standpoint - all of this ‘personal interpretation’ got those ancient readers no where when it came to identifying Christ as the Messiah. Here are a couple of example:

1.) Herod is told that the ‘new born King of the Jews’ had arrived - but, he did not know where He was - so Herod is told but took no action then. Just knowing something does not cause effective action.

2.) The Pharisees and other Jewish religious persons were constantly trying to trap Christ in some type of error or violation of a command - and refused to believe He was the Messiah because they thought they knew where Christ was born - but, they were wrong. Just knowing something does not cause effective action.

3.) Peter is confronted with the first doctrinal crisis of the Early Catholic Church - the Judiazers and their demand that Gentile converts first be circumcised, conform to the Law of Moses and then taught about Christ. Peter rejects this concept and directs - no more circumcision as an outward sign of being one of God’s people. The Judiazers wanted to continue on with what had already been fulfilled. Just knowing something does not cause effective action.

Now, claiming SS because something appears in the Bible is something like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. That bird can crow all day long - but, the sun is a reality by itself and not dependent on any proclamation. So, just saying that the Apostles pointed out that Christ had fulfilled the Old Testament is a fine and truthful statement - but, it certainly does not advance your position on SS.

As you may or may not know, Protestants are all over the place on any given issue you can think of. Some claim Christ is not God, that His Resurrection is not important - if it happened at all - and virtually all of the things He said need to be interpreted in light of today’s realities. For the past 2,000 years the Catholic Church has been teaching about Christ being God, Who founded His Church on Peter, He died for our sins and rose from the dead - and gave men the Power of God to forgive sin! As you know, the SS crowd worked very hard from the 16th Century forward to today to trash these teachings - and have only succeeded in splintering themselves further!

So, if you have a specific aspect to the Death of Christ on the Cross and how it applies to SS and one’s personal interpretation - I would be interested in hearing it. But, please, stay focused on the topic and leaving slighting other posters aside.

God bless

Newsy,

I think you are fast to answer without considering that the apostle were quoting from the old testament.
Messiah’s death on the cross was to bring to an end the old covenant and his blood remember ratified the new covenant. all this is clear from the old testament, from which the apostles taught, and PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT prophesied that the gentiles will be a part of his people.

Maybe you would want me to take the time to highlight the so many scriptures. scripture (new testament) never said Peter or Paul or the Gentiles they were associating with were eating unclean animals ,you are making an assumption - which is not based on the context.

 

[Newsy]

Hello… mrjinx…

I think we’ve been disconnected.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Newsy,

Maybe he went fishing (for better references and answers…)

God bless

Hello… mrjinx…

I think we’ve been disconnected.

 

[publicdj]

I’d like to know how/where Protestants justify sola scriptura – the position that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand it – within the “proof” I’ve outlined below (drawn from Robert A. Sungenis). I’m genuinely curious. It’s self-evident to me, especially for someone who returned to the Catholic faith only after deep agnosticism and in-depth research.
Problems of Coherence

Sola scriptura is incoherent because it it is (1) unbiblical, and (2) logically inconsistent.

(1) It is unbiblical.

– (a) The Bible nowhere teaches or assumes sola scriptura.

We can agree that Jesus, Paul, and others claim that Scripture has divine authority, and Jesus appeals to its authority. But nowhere does Jesus assume that what is written is the only source of continuing divine authority, and nowhere is it stated that “God’s will throughout history has been to commit wholly to writing all revelation and instruction that He intended as an ongoing authority for His people and their salvation.” All of the texts typically referenced (i.e., 2 Tim 3:16, Acts 17:10-12, etc.) “simply do not say this nor can they be made to imply this, without assuming in advance what is proper to one’s exegetical conclusions.”

– (b) The Bible assumes a larger context of delegated authority.

“God is never seen conferring authority on Scripture in an historical and social vacuum. Scripture is always found, rather, within a community in which God has conferred authority upon lawfully ordained human leaders. These leaders are always either (1) appointed by God Himself, and publicly confirmed in their appointment by a miraculous ministry, or (2) appointed in legitimate and lawful succession by authorities having their ultimate origin in the first category … Jesus and the apostles are seen demanding obedience not only to the written Word of God, but to the living decisions of the Church (Mt 18:12-20; cf. Acts 15, 16:4).”

– (c) The Bible assumes extrabiblical traditions.

"… the position of sola scriptura is self-defeating, because it rests on a presupposition that cannot be proved from Scripture (let alone from history) – namely, that the whole content of God’s revealed will for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed “wholly to writing,” so that no unwritten residue of divinely inspired instruction survived from the oral teachings of Jesus and His apostles that remained binding on God’s people after the New Testament (NT) was written … But where does Scripture say this? How could one claim to know this? …

"First, if all bindingly authoritative oral instruction ceased with the death of the last apostle and if the early churches did not have copies of all the New Testament books until well after that time, who spoke for the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the interim?

"Second, how can only plausibly imagine the transition from the partially oral framework of authoritative instruction (OT + teachings of Jesus and apostles) to a wholly written framework (OT + NT) required by this hypothesis?

“The writings of the early Church are filled with extrabiblical sayings of Jesus, practices of the Christian community, liturgical and Eucharistic formulas, and so forth, which presuppose the divine origin and authority of these things.”

– (d) The Bible assumes the liturgical context of the worshipping community.

“The Bible is by design a text intended to be publicly read and heard. We lose something when all we do is read it on our own. This privatized and bookish view is anachronistic and contrary to both the primary intended use of the Biblical texts and to the historical milieu of Scripture itself.”

(2) It is logically inconsistent.

– (a) It is self-referentially inconsistent.

"First … ‘it is self-contradictory, for it says we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this! If we believe only what Scripture teaches, we will not believe sola scriptura …’

"Second, it assumes that the ‘essential’ teachings of Scripture are sufficiently clear to be understood by anyone, but is not itself sufficiently clear to be considered a scriptural teaching by all.

"Third, it claims that the Bible is the ultimate authority, but in fact subordinates the Bible to the extrabiblical (traditions of) interpretation of this or that individual, or group, about what the Bible says. This means, practically speaking, that sola scriptura leads to hermeneutical subjectivism.

“Fourth, sola scriptura is self-referentially inconsistent because the Bible contains no inspired index of its own contents and cannot even be identified as a divine revelation except on extrabiblical grounds of tradition.”

– (b) It violates the principle of sufficient reason.

“… it violates the principles of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture; and the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops of the Church, decided on the cannon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible.”

How is it that you declare ALL Protestants to subscribe to Sola Scriptura? Pretty sure you need a lesson in religious history. Not all Protestants are the same, not by a long shot.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Publicdj,

That sounds like you wish to tell us more … So, please, enlighten us.

One of the real issues that has me concerned deals with interpretation of the Bible. Who determines what authority will be used? If you would incorporate that into your answer, I would find it very helpful. Thanks!

God bless

How is it that you declare ALL Protestants to subscribe to Sola Scriptura? Pretty sure you need a lesson in religious history. Not all Protestants are the same, not by a long shot.

 

[mrjinx777]

Looks like I forgot to mention here, too – eep – I always try to cite. I pulled from John Salza.[/QUOT

Are you suggesting the “oral tradition of the Apostles” were teachings that were (1) different (2) in direct opposition (3) in conflict with written scripture ?

Because I disagree: I see no conflict with Sola Scripture and the preaching of the Word of God.

Now I don’t see a problem with preaching and teaching against the scriptures , I agree that all that Jesus said could not be contain in books however based on his own words and lifestyle, I hasten to add that all that he said and did was done according to scripture.

May be another view of Sola Scripture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

 

[mrjinx777]

Hi, Newsy,

Maybe he went fishing (for better references and answers…)

God bless

You know fishing is not a bad thing however I have learned from Jesus silence has its value and now I am ready to continue.

I have selected one of your questions - The canonization of scripture .

I am convinced that the old testament existed during the
time of Jesus and the apostles and for centuries prior. The new testament although not bonded together as we know it today after being written by their authors had existed throughout the church. here is a link that will go into full details. ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.ii.i.html?highlight=canonizing,of,scripture#highlight

 

[submariner2]

Whose intention? Luther & Co voluntarily left the Catholic Church through apostasy. The truth is they willfully cut themselves off from the Church founded by Christ. They initiated and enacted a revolt - Luther may have started out to reform some genuine practice abuses , but apparently was drawn in by the power he thought he control. His actions in the Peasants War of 1524 shows that he was willing to do whatever was necessary to stay in power. %between%

tqualey,

I think it is unfair to say Martin Luther left the church volunarily. He was exommunicated and most do not even know why specificallly. Do you really think he would have been excommunicated today?

SS is all about interpretation - it has nothing to do with whatever may be written. With 30,000+ examples of groups that actively believe in SS - take any verse, or passage or chapter or book in Scripture - and it can be interpreted to mean anything the interpreter wants it to mean. All Protestant doctrines seem to spring from Scripture - yet, there are 30,000+ because none of them agree with one another. This is a major issue and one that deserves to be addressed clearly. It appears to me that you are confusing things./

I dont think any of that disqualifies the common sense of SS. It simply means that scripture alone is sufficient to understand the Gospel Message and how to find salvation.

After all scripture is the Word of God and not any doctrines taught by any church. It is the words of Jesus and the apostles. Why is that not sufficient?

Rob

 

[YendisAgev]

Basically, they stand on 2 Tim 3:16, and a few other verses that they cherry-pick out of context for their use to suit their own personal beliefs… But I mustn’t generalize; after all, in Protestantism there are as many popes as there are noses, and they could all teach something different if they wanted to, so long as they find it/base it on/think it’s implied in the Bible.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Isn’t that good enough?

But if not:

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19

“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Deuteronomy 4:2

“If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.” 1 Corinthians 14:37

 

[YendisAgev]

From my understanding, if scripture and Tradition never conflict, then there is no issue. Some reject Catholic Tradition, big “T”, and refer to scripture. If they are in disagreement with the Church, then they are naturally reading scripture with a pretext. The Canon of the Bible was given to the Catholic Church by the Holy Spirit through Ecumenical Councils. If the Catholic Church was in conflict with scripture, then why would they include the troublesome passage?

“From my understanding, if scripture and Tradition never conflict, then there is no issue.”


Your understanding is wrong. Nearly everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches conflicts with the Bible…

I don’t think I can fit everything I’d like to say here so here is a link:

gotquestions.org/Catholic-questions.html

And here is a link from that website talking about Sola Scriptura: gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html