since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[joe371]

lantheria;12696385]why (Edited) should we? so you can once again get off to tearing down the stupid hellbound protestant heretics?

I have never met or talked to a catholic that tries to, as you say - “tearing down the stupid hellbound protestant heretics”. However, I have met quite a few nonCs, including my family, that have said that to me. In which post did anyone say or suggest what you said in this post?

the answer to your question is staring you in the mirror. you’re not going to turn us catholic with the constant triumphalism, exclusionism, belittling, mocking and downright hatred of our deepest-held beliefs that infects this forum. all you’re doing is attempting to murder our faith.

If this is what you believe the CC teaches, then you clearly have never read the catechism. Google anything related to bashing Catholicism; do the same with Protestantism, and let me know what you discover?

there’s only so much we can take before we say “enough’s enough” and shake the dust from our feet.

(as for sola scriptura, all i have to say is this: i use the bible. that is what i do. it’s not my problem if you don’t like that.

As a former nonCatholic, I would ask you if you believe the bible is the Christians final authority, but I am a bit gun shy, based on this post.

 

[Church_Militant]

why (Edited) should we? so you can once again get off to tearing down the stupid hellbound protestant heretics?

I have never said such a thing or even inferred it, so I don’t know where you come from with that.

the answer to your question is staring you in the mirror. you’re not going to turn us catholic with the constant triumphalism, exclusionism, belittling, mocking and downright hatred of our deepest-held beliefs that infects this forum. all you’re doing is attempting to murder our faith.

Then why in the world are you here?

Look…it makes no sense to go someplace like that. I sure wouldn’t and I don’t because there are a number of forums that treat us Catholics exactly as you have just described. Result: I don’t participate there.

However. CAF has very clear rules and guidelines that can be easily found in several places, but are assembled here by the forum moderator and the mods here enforce these rules more evenly than I have ever seen anywhere on the net, which is one reason that so many of us call this our online home for information and discussion.

I have to say that your accusation is false and I suppose we can rejoice in ***Matthew 5:[11] "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [12] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you. ***

there’s only so much we can take before we say “enough’s enough” and shake the dust from our feet.

If you’re so unhappy then why’d you even post? I have asked for an honest and concise explanation and defense of Sola Scriptura…that’s all, but so far no one has really stepped up to show where this is actually found in the Bible, which frankly surprises me

(as for sola scriptura, all i have to say is this: i use the bible. that is what i do. it’s not my problem if you don’t like that.

That’s fine but as John Henry Newman said , “We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe.”

 

[thetazlord]

1. Did any of the apostles practice sola scriptura?

Yes, they did. Read post #50:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12678909&postcount=50

1. In which verse(s) does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

Again, read post #50:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12678909&postcount=50

Again, it would help if you knew what Sola Scriptura actually means, which I explained in the post. Because I notice most Catholics (& to be fair, many Protestant denominations) don’t have an accurate understanding of what it actually means. This is why you have even “Protestants” who “claim” to be Sola Scriptura, yet they ordain female “pastors” & gay “pastors,” as well as condone abortion, which completely violates Sola Scriptura because BOTH “beliefs” & practices contradict Scripture. So, are they actually Sola Scriptura, just because they “say-so”? Obviously not! Even the beliefs of “some” adherents to Sola Scriptura needs to be compared TO Scripture. So, just because many Protestant denominations are not actually Sola Scriptura doesn’t means that the Biblical concept of it isn’t true - it only means that those particular denominations are violating it & are actually hypocritical.

 

[thetazlord]

Good points Ahs & Randy and deserving of an answer.

I did. But it would help if he & you would actually READ what I wrote in post #50:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12678909&postcount=50

 

[thetazlord]

This is partially true…many Christians don’t know what “sola Scriptura” means to the various Christians who espouse the idea. In fact, many Christians who espouse SS will give you many different explanations/definitions/etc. of what it means. I would say that this is a real problem. You can’t really claim that a belief is true, if you have no authoritative way of defining it, can you? Is your understanding of SS more correct than some other Christian’s who also espouses SS?

By saying “YOUR understanding,” you’re still not understanding what Sola Scriptura is that I explained in post #50. The reason there are so many “explanations/definitions/etc” is because from the get-go many of these “sola scriptura” denominations aren’t actually adhering to “Scripture alone” which simply means that if they ADD anything to what Scripture actually supports, then they too are violating Sola Scriptura. For example, gay & women “pastors” & advocating abortion completely violate Sola Scriptura, despite some “self-proclaimed” sola scriptura denominations practicing them. Are they actually Sola Scriptura because they “say-so”? Obviously not! Am I sola scriptura for rejecting these “pastors” & rejecting abortion? Yes, I am. But it’s not because of “MY understanding” of Sola Scriptura, but rather Scripture alone is against this.

Cannot exceed, add, subtract, or contradict WHOSE interpretation of Scripture? Among sola Scriptura Christians, I find many with directly opposing views of doctrines, each of them claiming that the other group is contradicting Scripture with their respective doctrines, yet each is based “solely” on Scripture. How do you decide if someone is contradicting Scripture without first assuming that your understanding is the correct one and all others are wrong?

Again, if two groups have “opposing views of doctrines” - like gay/women “pastors” & abortion - the group who is advocating them is contradicting Scripture. The other group is correct not because they are “interpreting” Scripture “right,” because Scripture alone advocates AGAINST these practices.

Right. All of these support NOT contradicting God’s Word. But not one of these supports Scripture ALONE, nor do any of them diminish the Oral Word of God [spoken], nor do any suggest that the spoken Word is of less value than the written.

Actually, if you read those passages, they don’t “only” say “NOT contradicting God’s Word,” but also “do not ADD” and/or “do not TAKE AWAY” - not just in Revelation, but also from the Torah through the Prophets to the NT. So, “ADDING” extra-biblical “oral” tradition of men (Matthew 15:1-9) is also covered in these passages. You “assume” that your “oral traditions” of your church are also the “Oral Word of God,” but that is just an “assumption” based on circular reasoning. The Pharisees though the same thing, & Jesus rebuked them…how? “Have you not READ…?” “As it is WRITTEN…” The OT is about JESUS, which He even stated about Moses, “He WROTE about Me!” Jesus NEVER says the extra-scriptural “oral tradition” is “about Me.”

Actually, He does exactly that, which is why the Jews wanted to kill Him. "You have heard it said" [and then He quotes the OT; i.e. “an eye for an eye”], “but I say to you”…then He introduces a teaching NOT in the OT Scriptures that we are now bound to accept, yet which was not recorded until sometime after Christ rose to Heaven, and of which, as Scripture tells us plainly, not all of these things were written down].

Actually, He does. Much of the Sermon of the Mount is from the OT, either directly quoted or implied. When Jesus says “eye for eye,” He’s affirming the OT command for limiting retaliation so the punishment fits the crime & doesn’t exceed it, but it was never meant as a sanction of personal retaliation. Jesus clarifies this when He goes on to say, “do not resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” So, Jesus wasn’t actually “adding” to the OT, but rather clarifying that the OT command for not retaliating due to a crime applied to personal retaliation also. Besides, if Jesus says something that is then written down in NT Scripture, then it’s not violating Sola Scriptura, because it’s written in Scripture.

That’s not how Timothy would have understood it, because Paul specifically directs him to the Scriptures of his youth, and much of the NT had yet to be written by this time. Any future NT writings (John’s Gospel, Revelation, etc.) would have otherwise been seen as “adding to the Word” in that case, and would have thus been rejected by Timothy (if he saw it the way you currently see it).

You’re missing the point of me “…for Christians also refers to NEW Testament Inspired Scriptures.” Obviously, most of the NT hadn’t been written yet. My point was that since Paul states that all Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed), then what the NT writers referred to as Scripture is also Inspired (God-breathed). And we know it’s Inspired, because it has the same godly attributes that the OT Inspired Scriptures have.

I think you are confusing “traditions of men” [ritual washings, hypocrisy of the Pharisees, etc.] as opposed to Apostolic Traditions.

No, it’s the same, whether they are the extra-scriptural OT “traditions” of the Pharisees that you mentioned, or the extra-scriptural church “traditions” in the church age, if any of these “traditions” are not found in Scripture (Old or New Testament), these “traditions” are the “precepts the doctrines of men” which Jesus would be opposed to.

(CONT)

 

[thetazlord]

(cont)

**Are you saying that every single tradition that Paul exhorts us to adhere to were written down by Paul? Is there a Scriptural passage that leads you to believe this? ** I will argue that NOT all of the traditions we are told to adhere to are written by Paul or the other Apostles. Chief among them, the Canon of the NT. Not one author in the NT lists the Canon of NT Scripture.

Let me use the actual Scriptures where Paul talks about those “traditions” he is referring to:

Out of the 14 times the word ‘tradition’ is used in Scripture, 11 times it’s used negatively, such as when Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 (Matthew 15:7-9) & condemns the Pharisees’ ‘tradition’ (v.1-6), which was not based on the written ‘tradition’ of the Old Testament, but rather ‘exceeded’ it.

Out of the 3 times the word ‘tradition’ is used in Scripture positively, it refers to ‘tradition’ that had been previously written:

1. 1 Corinthians 11:2 – the ‘tradition’ that Paul ‘delivered to them,’ he ‘received from the Lord’ (v.23) which he had just written to them, such as the ‘traditions’ to ‘flee idolatry’ (10:14); that the ‘spiritual rock was Christ’ (10:4); that ‘we’ (ie: believers) are ‘the one body’ of Christ (10:17); & not to ‘sacrifice to demons’ like ‘which the Gentiles sacrifice’ (10:20-21).
2. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 – the ‘traditions’ which Paul says that were to be received ‘by word of mouth or by letter from us’ aren’t different traditions (ie: one tradition by mouth & a separate tradition by letter), but rather the same traditions that would ‘either’ be ‘taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’ These ‘traditions’ were what Paul had just written, because he begins this verse with ‘So then’ or ‘Therefore,’ indicating that the ‘traditions’ he was talking about were what he had just communicated to them in writing, which were about the Second Coming of Jesus (v.1-14).
3. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 – the ‘tradition’ which Paul states ‘you received from us’ is the ‘tradition’ to ‘keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life,’ which is in the same written verse, which Paul goes onto describe this ‘tradition’ as to pay for bread ‘with labor & hardship’ (v.8); ‘if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat’ (v.10); & for those who don’t follow these ‘traditions’ to ‘admonish him as a brother’ (v.15). Plus, Paul states that this ‘tradition’ is to ‘obey our instruction in this letter’ (v.14), which is written.

Therefore, when Scripture speaks about following ‘tradition’ it refers to ‘tradition’ that has previously been written – not ‘tradition’ that either ‘exceeds’ what is written, nor contradicts it, because that ‘tradition’ is not ‘God-breathed,’ so it does not come from God, but from men.

As far as the NT canon goes - again, much of it that was written by the mid-first century had ALREADY been recognized by the early Church (such as Paul & Peter) as being Inspired Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Peter 3:15-16; etc). As far as the rest, again, it was recognized as Scripture, not because the Church itself “recognized” it as such, but with aid from the Holy Spirit, He helped them recognized the godly attributes that are in them, which are the EXACT SAME as those of the ALREADY recognized NT Inspired Scriptures, as well as the ALREADY recognized OT Scriptures that Paul was referring to.

…such as the NT Canon, which has ZERO Scriptural support and is an “extra-Scriptural tradition”. Or, sola Scriptura, which also has ZERO Scriptural support and is an “extra-Scriptural tradition”. Can you provide the Chapter and verse that says, “Scripture Alone”? Or must you rely on your fallible interpretation of Scripture to conclude this?

Refer above.

AMEN!!! I will argue that in concluding SS from the Bible, “quote-mining” is exactly what you have to do.

Actually not adhering to Sola Scriptura is the result of “quote-mining,” such as quote-mining those THREE passages by Paul that talk about “tradition” without consulting the surrounding passages. See above.

Chapter and verse please. And please don’t resort to the logical fallacy where you conclude that “Word of God” is equal to “ONLY the written Word”.

See above.

That is the exact opposite of what the Bible says. 1Pet 1:25 explicitly tells us that the Word of God is that which is PREACHED to us (oral).

Preaching the Word of God (which is written) in the “oral” form of preaching isn’t violating Sola Scriptura. It’s merely preaching what has already been written down, not “adding” extra-biblical “tradition.”

2Tim 2:2 says that we are to entrust what we have HEARD (oral) to others. 2Thess 2:15 explicitly tells us to hold fast to the written AND the oral traditions. Why should I reject 2Thess 2:15?

And what Paul had “entrusted” to Timothy what he “heard” was about Jesus Christ, who was the fulfillment of the OT written Scriptures. Again, to understand what Timothy had “heard,” you have to consult the SURROUNDING passages in 2 Timothy 2, as well as Acts - BOTH of which are ALREADY written Inspired Scriptures. Same with 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which I covered above.

No it isn’t. It’s basing facts upon the authority of Christ, via Christ’s Church, whom He gave authority to speak with His very Voice (Lk 10:16) and deciding to not reject His Church.

It is circular reasoning. Because the only way we know “what” Christ’s church actually is, is by comparing “THEIR understanding,” “THEIR interpretations,” “THEIR traditions” to the Word of God, just as the “more noble-minded Bereans” did (Acts 17:11). Otherwise, we are simply accepting the “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:1-9).

 

[sallybutler]

…

Again, if two groups have “opposing views of doctrines” - like gay/women “pastors” & abortion - the group who is advocating them is contradicting Scripture. The other group is correct not because they are “interpreting” Scripture “right,” because Scripture alone advocates AGAINST these practices.

…
(CONT)

You picked some big ticket items to bring up. How about smaller one?

Why do some churches feel it is not biblical to have instruments in church while others feel it is ok.

Why do some churches feel that they should not drink wine until Jesus returns, but it is ok to eat bread, while others have no problem with either?

People use biblical passages (or the lack therof) to justify these positions. How can I know who added, who subtracted, etc?

 

[thetazlord]

You picked some big ticket items to bring up. How about smaller one?

Why do some churches feel it is not biblical to have instruments in church while others feel it is ok.

Excellent questions! The answer to this can actually be used by applying Sola Scriptura. Is there anything in the Word of God that commands not using instruments in public worship during the gathering together of the Church? No, there isn’t. Therefore, “ADDING” to Scripture that a Church can’t use musical instruments violates Sola Scriptura. In the OT, lyres, harps, tambourines, & other music instruments were used in worship, even by King David. Even in the NT, when Paul states in Ephesians 5:19, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.” The phrase “making melody” comes from the Greek word “psallontes” which means “to rub or touch,” “to twitch or twang.” It was commonly used in Greek to refer to playing a stringed musical instrument. Plus, the early Church was mostly Jewish, so they would have no reason not to play musical instruments, since there was no instruction to stop using them.

Why do some churches feel that they should not drink wine until Jesus returns, but it is ok to eat bread, while others have no problem with either?

People use biblical passages (or the lack therof) to justify these positions. How can I know who added, who subtracted, etc?

Scripturally, I have no idea why some churches don’t believe in drinking wine until Jesus returns, because Scripture doesn’t forbid drinking wine in the NT Church. In fact, Jesus himself drank wine, & brings this up when the Pharisees condemned Jesus for drinking wine, while at the same time condemning John the Baptist who didn’t. Obviously, Jesus wasn’t drinking grape juice, because the Pharisees wouldn’t have condemned Him for that. However, it’s important to note that the concentration & potency of wine in Biblical times was a lot less than wine today. People drank wine back then because the water was filthy, so the wine was diluted anywhere between 1/3 to 1/10 the strength it is today. That’s why when the apostles were rebuked (unjustly) for “they are FULL of new wine” Peter replied “these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour (9am).” That wasn’t enough time to get drunk. Plus, Paul encourages Timothy to drink wine for an upset stomach. Granted, the NT commands Christians not to get DRUNK, but that doesn’t mean that a person can’t drink wine. It’s only when drinking alcohol in front a person that has problems with alcoholism which might “tempt” or “weaken” them that another Christian should refrain from drinking it in front of them. This may be why many churches don’t serve wine during communion, because they know there are congregants that have issues with alcoholism. So, the “substance” of the elements isn’t the actual issue during communion, but rather the “reason” for communion - remembering what Christ did on the cross - His body being broken (symbolized by the breaking of bread) & His blood being spilled for the remission of our sins (symbolized by the wine served during communion).

If you want a really good explanation on the type of “wine” that was used in Biblical times, as well as throughout the Church age, here is a sermon that discusses it in detail:

youtube.com/watch?v=thXe-rtpl6U

So, just because some “people use biblical passages (or the lack therof) to justify these positions,” that doesn’t mean they are “using” them Scripturally & in context. Like anything else, we still must compare what’s being taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11), not just “lifting” or “quote-mining” a particular passage out of Scripture, without examining the surrounding passages, & comparing it to the Bible’s message as a whole. THIS is the Biblical concept of Sola Scriptural. “ADDING” beliefs & “traditions” to it, isn’t.

 

[sallybutler]

I realized I did not ask one more question. The people who believe differently from what you replied do not feel that they are adding or subtracting from the Bible. They have reasons and justifications for their take on what is or is not being said.

How does an outsider determine which is correct if one can not use anything other than the Bible?

To me, that means you would not use historical context, traditions, other people’s interpretations, what your parents or your pastor told you, etc. No dictionaries, no commentaries, just the Bible.

 

[fasolislithuan]

It’s impossible to believe in Sola Scriptura (it’s the same Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura) from a philosophical and logical perspective. Is untenable because:

1. **It’s self-refuting, **it cannot prove itself. You cannot demand from everyone something you’re unable to accomplish for yourself. So, logically, SS must be discard.

When someone try to demonstrate Sola Scriptura, he/she needs to do a kind of Biblical escapology and the explanations are always hardly convincing. Note that when Jesus teaches (from his own mouth) unambigous issues as His real presence in Eucharist (in many passages of John 6) then protestants, inmediately flip the switch and say they cannot see this, but rather they do see Sola Scriptura. It looks very difficult to believe in anyone that claims: “All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be upright”. means the Bible is the sole and sufficient authority and on the contrary "“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” means the flesh and blood of Jesus are not real, rather symbolic. They’re only fooling themselves.

1. Sola Scriptura is insufficient.

Far from being the sole authority in some doctrinal issues, the Sola Scripture is not even sufficient to determine some crucial elements of the deposit of faith. This is a definitive argument : Can Bible Alone explain why the Word of God has to have exactly 73 books, or perhaps 66 ones? Why not 84? If Bible Alone cannot answer this easy and direct question without to do some escapology then Sola Scriptura fails and shows its uselessness. From the protestant perspective if is an extra-biblical authority (Luther, the Holy Spirit, the tradition, the consensus, the history, etc…) who determines this doctrine and not the Bible, then, by definition, Sola Scriptura is insufficient to establish all doctrine and also by definition is not the sole authority.

 

[Gorgias]

Taz,

I came to this post of yours at your insistence that we Catholics misunderstand Sola Scriptura. Mind if I comment on your assertions?

Actually that’s because in general, Christians have a false assumption of what sola scriptura actually is

You recognize, of course, that various Christians who hold to SS disagree what, precisely, it means, right?

which is the Biblically-supported doctrine that all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture

Let’s look at this – particularly, let’s look at how defensible it is in the context of the citations you provide…

Deuteronomy 4:1-2
Now therefore, Israel, hear the statutes and ordinances I am teaching you to observe, that you may live, and may enter in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I am commanding you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it.

Right off the bat, you have two serious problems:
First, this command is directed toward Israel. If you want to make the claim that Israel is bound by SS, that’s one thing; however, if you want to assert that it binds the Gentiles, then you cannot use this verse.

Second, this is an assertion about the Mosaic Law. Clearly, Jesus did not do away with the Law – but just as clearly, He ‘added’ and ‘subtracted’ from it. If SS is valid, why doesn’t Jesus observe it in the context of His teaching?

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Add nothing to his words, lest he reprimand you, and you be proved a liar.

Are God’s words only found in Scripture? I’ll defer answering this critical question until later in this post…

Ecclesiastes 3:11, 14
[God] has put the timeless into [mortals’] hearts so they cannot find out, from beginning to end, the work which God has done… I recognized that whatever God does will endure forever; there is no adding to it, or taking from it. Thus has God done that he may be revered.

I recognize that you’re honing in on this verse because of the allusion to the “no adding… or taking”; in that sense, it fits with your project here. Yet, this isn’t an allusion to God’s word; rather, it’s a direct reference to God’s works – that is, what “God has done”. Verse 11 clearly tells us that we “cannot find out … the work which God has done.” In other words, if you want to hang your hat off this verse, you must admit that you have no idea what God has done – that is, if you want to claim SS on the basis of this verse, you must admit that you have no idea what God’s work in this context is. So, you really have to throw this verse out, not only on the basis of the fact that it doesn’t address God’s word, but also on the basis that it cannot help substantiate your case.

Isaiah 30:1 speaks not at all to God’s word, but to God’s plan. It cannot be brought to bear to help your case.

Jeremiah 26:2 binds the prophet, not the people. The binding doesn’t address Scripture, but adherence to Mosaic Law. (Yes, Mosaic Law is recorded in Scripture, but the obligation is to the Law, not the record of the Law.) Moreover, this is a prophecy for a particular people, in a particular time; this verse, while valuable, doesn’t set a rule for all peoples – or even all Jews!

Acts 17 is the well-known episode in Beroea. I’ll defer explanation to the host of Catholic apologists who have pointed out the error of appealing to the Berean experience in the defense of SS. Suffice it to say that Paul likes the Bereans because they’re willing to open their Bibles, rather than simply make up stories and try to get him in trouble with civil authorities. If the extent of SS is merely the admonition to “open up your Bibles”, it’s all good. If it’s only “open up your Bibles”, then your citation fails – the strength of the Bereans isn’t their reliance on their Scriptures, but on their willingness to accept the non-Scriptural Apostolic Teaching of Paul. I’m certain that, if you want to assert that SS means “trust Apostolic teaching”, we Catholics will support you 100%…

To be continued…

 

[Gorgias]

Continuing…

1 Cor 4

This, finally, is a good argument. (Limited, I’d argue, in defense of your claim, but a nice place to have a discussion.)

First of all, it’s important to note that this is a very difficult passage to interpret – the grammar here lends itself to quite the range of interpretation. In the Greek, we have:

Ταῦτα | δέ, | ἀδελφοί, | μετεσχημάτισα | εἰς ἐμαυτὸν | καὶ | Ἀπολλὼν | δι’ ὑμᾶς, | ἵνα | ἐν ἡμῖν | μάθητε | τό | Μὴ | ὑπὲρ | ἃ | γέγραπται.

These [things] | however | brothers | I have applied | to myself | and | to Apollos | on your account | in us | you might learn | the | not | beyond | the | writings.

Now, the geek in me wants to dive into the meaning of the ἐν – what does Paul mean by “in us”? But, that’s probably a minor point in this discussion. In play, rather, is what Paul means by “these things” that he has applied? In what way does this application help the brothers? What are the not-beyond-the-writings to which he refers? In what way do Paul’s actions help the brethren learn the not-beyond-the-writings? Most importantly, does this passage establish SS?

These are too many questions to include in this post. Suffice it to say that, even if you could make a case that “the writings” are all Scripture – and not just what had already been written at this point in time (i.e., OT, and not the Gospels) – you would have to demonstrate that Paul’s goal was that Christians should not deviate from Scripture. Especially when Christ, Himself, deviated from Scripture by His teachings (which, of course fulfilled Scripture by means of His deviations from Mosaic Law).

Revelations 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

Some serious problems here, in the context of your assertion. I’m sure you’ve heard them, though.

John speaks of “this book”. Not “these books”, but “this book”, singular. About which book is he speaking? Revelation? The OT? The Bible (OT, Gospels, Epistles, Revelation)? The Bible, as a single book, did not exist at this time. Were the people of his time free from the requirement of changing words, in a way that we – in the time of the Bible – are now not?

And, of course, there’s the kicker, given to us by John himself:

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book.” (John 20:30)

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

Are these words and deeds of Jesus not, likewise, the “Word of God”? If not, then are we saying that Jesus’ words are only important if they’re captured in the Bible? (In other words, “Sola Scriptura” doesn’t mean “only the Words of God”, but rather, “only the Words of God that were written down”? Doesn’t that dilute the meaning of SS?) If so, aren’t we saying that Scripture isn’t the Sole record of Jesus’ words – that the Apostolic Teaching of those who walked with him are likewise words to which we are bound?

I think I’m out of space in this post; but, to sum up: the claims of SS – even if we take your definition as canonical – aren’t substantiated by the Scriptural evidence you provide.

 

[ShanPO]

Actually that’s because in general, Christians have a false assumption of what sola scriptura actually is, which is the Biblically-supported doctrine that all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19). This is why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew Ch.15 for their “precepts the doctrines of men” because not only were they contradicting Scripture, they were also ADDING TO Scripture (“precepts the doctrines of MEN”). This is why when Jesus corrected their “man-made traditions,” he used Scripture to correct them (‘As it is written…’ (Matthew 26:24; Mark 7:6; 9:13; 14:21; etc) & ‘Have you not read?’ (Matthew 12:3,5; 19:4; 22:41; Mark 12:10,26; Luke 63; etc). Jesus never appeals to extra-scriptural “tradition” to correct false doctrines or teachings, which is the point of 2 Timothy 3:16, which for Christians also refers to NEW Testament Inspired Scriptures as well (Luke 10:7, cf. 1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:1,19; etc). In fact, out of the 14 times “tradition” is mentioned in Scripture, it’s mentioned negatively. The THREE times it’s mentioned positively (1 Corinth 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6), it’s in the context of “oral tradition” that Paul that he had just written down - not “extra-scriptual tradition” with ZERO Scriptural support. In order to realize this you have to read the SURROUNDING passages of those THREE verses - not just quote-mine them out of context. So, using the argument about the authority of “traditions” in the church, that authority is only God-breathed insofar as that “tradition” & “authority” being able to backed up by God-breathed Scripture. Scripture never supports “extra-scriptural tradition” as being at the same “level” as God-breathed Scripture. In fact, it condemns it. And saying because “the Church does,” is just circular reasoning.

So what makes you more right than someone else who holds a different view of what SS is?

What authority in the non-Catholic Christian world do you have to pronounce what SS is and is not?

 

[thetazlord]

I realized I did not ask one more question. The people who believe differently from what you replied do not feel that they are adding or subtracting from the Bible. They have reasons and justifications for their take on what is or is not being said.

How does an outsider determine which is correct if one can not use anything other than the Bible?

To me, that means you would not use historical context, traditions, other people’s interpretations, what your parents or your pastor told you, etc. No dictionaries, no commentaries, just the Bible.

Since the Bible is the Word of God, & since the Word of God states that it’s okay to use musical instruments during worship, as well as wine, then why would we need “historical context, traditions, other people’s interpretations, or what our pastor or parents tell us” when it’s explicitly clear in Scripture that these things are okay to engage in. Dictionaries, concordances, commentaries, lexicons, etc help us understand passages more clearer in the original languages of Scripture, but most translations do a good job conveying what God intended. And drinking wine & playing musical instruments are clearly okay based on Scripture alone. So, it’s not even an issue.

BTW, did you watch the sermon & posted the link from about Christians & alcohol? Very well done.

 

[thetazlord]

It’s impossible to believe in Sola Scriptura (it’s the same Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura) from a philosophical and logical perspective. Is untenable because:

1. **It’s self-refuting, **it cannot prove itself. You cannot demand from everyone something you’re unable to accomplish for yourself. So, logically, SS must be discard.

When someone try to demonstrate Sola Scriptura, he/she needs to do a kind of Biblical escapology and the explanations are always hardly convincing. Note that when Jesus teaches (from his own mouth) unambigous issues as His real presence in Eucharist (in many passages of John 6) then protestants, inmediately flip the switch and say they cannot see this, but rather they do see Sola Scriptura. It looks very difficult to believe in anyone that claims: “All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be upright”. means the Bible is the sole and sufficient authority and on the contrary "“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” means the flesh and blood of Jesus are not real, rather symbolic. They’re only fooling themselves.

Actually, Sola Scriptura is not philosophical, but Biblically-based, when you have an accurate understanding of what it actually means - which I notice from some of the responses here that most don’t. Refer to my other post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12678909&postcount=50

As far as John 6:53 goes, keep in mind that because, at best, the verse is ambiguous, because in Greek, words like “eat,” “drink,” “bread,” “body,” “blood” have numerous definitions, just like they do in English, using Sola Scriptura, to understand that verse, you would have to examine ALL of the relevant surrounding verses (not just a few) beginning with John 6:35, & compare it to the Bible’s message as a whole. But since the OP is about “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need,” not the meaning of John 6:53, if you want to discuss this & obey forum rules, I suggest you begin a new thread.

1. Sola Scriptura is insufficient.

Far from being the sole authority in some doctrinal issues, the Sola Scripture is not even sufficient to determine some crucial elements of the deposit of faith. This is a definitive argument : Can Bible Alone explain why the Word of God has to have exactly 73 books, or perhaps 66 ones? Why not 84? If Bible Alone cannot answer this easy and direct question without to do some escapology then Sola Scriptura fails and shows its uselessness. From the protestant perspective if is an extra-biblical authority (Luther, the Holy Spirit, the tradition, the consensus, the history, etc…) who determines this doctrine and not the Bible, then, by definition, Sola Scriptura is insufficient to establish all doctrine and also by definition is not the sole authority.

Well, Jesus didn’t seem to think so whenever He admonished the Pharisees by “solely” correcting them with “Scripture” (“Have you not READ…?” “As it is WRITTEN…”) In order to appreciate the reason there are the number of books in the Bible - no more, no less - begins with the recognition of the godly attributes (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, written by recognized apostles of God & disciples of Christ or their close contemporaries: Mark → Peter; Luke → Paul; etc) that don’t exist in any other religious or secular texts. The recognition of the Torah dates back to the days of Joshua, which both the Pharisees & Sadducees, as well as the scribes recognized as well in the days of Jesus. The Prophets were recognized as well by Jesus & His disciples (even though the Sadducees rejected them, only the Pharisees did), which they referred to them as “the Law & the Prophets.” Jesus breaks this down even further by referring to the three-fold division as “the Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms” (Luke 24:44-45), which earlier in the same chapter, Jesus refers to them as “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, & ALL the Scriptures,” which Protestants also recognize these exact same books in their OT, as well as the Jews which are contained in their TaNaKh.

 

[thetazlord]

Continuing…

Thanks for well-thought out responses. However, I must comment on a few things. In order to appreciate when God talks about not “adding to” or “taking away,” of course He was speaking to Israel, because the OT was written in the time period OF Israel, not the Church. The point of bringing up those OT passages is that throughout the OT, & well into the NT, God continually instructs Israel, & then to Church not to “add” to His Word, not “take away” from it. And to extend of what we “know” about God is revealed in the pages in Scripture, because as the apostle later states “ALL Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:15-16), which - specifically - he’s referring to the OT Scripture. Yet for the Church ALSO refers to the NT Scriptures (1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Peter 3:15-16; etc).

Ταῦτα | δέ, | ἀδελφοί, | μετεσχημάτισα | εἰς ἐμαυτὸν | καὶ | Ἀπολλὼν | δι’ ὑμᾶς, | ἵνα | ἐν ἡμῖν | μάθητε | τό | Μὴ | ὑπὲρ | ἃ | γέγραπται.

These [things] | however | brothers | I have applied | to myself | and | to Apollos | on your account | in us | you might learn | the | not | beyond | the | writings.

Now, the geek in me wants to dive into the meaning of the ἐν – what does Paul mean by “in us”? But, that’s probably a minor point in this discussion. In play, rather, is what Paul means by “these things” that he has applied? In what way does this application help the brothers? What are the not-beyond-the-writings to which he refers? In what way do Paul’s actions help the brethren learn the not-beyond-the-writings? Most importantly, does this passage establish SS?

Dear fellow geek, if you read the whole of 1 Corinthians 4, it’s clear the “not beyond what’s written” that Paul is referring to is the letter Paul has written to them. But again, by Paul emphasizing “not to exceed beyond what is written,” since he’s not saying it’s “okay” to ADD to what’s written, Paul is following the same pattern God instructed Israel in the OT. IOW, there is no indication in Paul’s first epistle the the Corinthians, or anywhere else in the NT, that it’s “permitted” to ADD to God’s Word, any more than it was with Israel in the OT.

Revelations 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

Some serious problems here, in the context of your assertion. I’m sure you’ve heard them, though.

John speaks of “this book”. Not “these books”, but “this book”, singular. About which book is he speaking? Revelation? The OT? The Bible (OT, Gospels, Epistles, Revelation)? The Bible, as a single book, did not exist at this time. Were the people of his time free from the requirement of changing words, in a way that we – in the time of the Bible – are now not?

Of course, John is referring to the book of Revelation. But what is this book about? In Revelation Ch.1, Jesus instructs John to write “what he’s seen” (John’s past), what he “is seeing” (John’s present), as well as what John “will see” (John’s vision of future events) - John’s past, present, & future. That is what Revelation is about that shouldn’t be “added to” nor “taken away” from - the same thing God has instructed Israel throughout the OT, all the way to the Church through the NT age, and beyond into the Church age.

And, of course, there’s the kicker, given to us by John himself:

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book.” (John 20:30)

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

Are these words and deeds of Jesus not, likewise, the “Word of God”? If not, then are we saying that Jesus’ words are only important if they’re captured in the Bible?

And that’s because since Jesus is God, then obviously Jesus’ Words are God-breathed. However, since John didn’t write them down, obviously he didn’t feel they were important enough to be included in God-breathed Scripture, like everything else he wrote. Plus, these things Jesus said that weren’t written down, John never says that the Church should follow them, nor do we know what “these things Jesus said.” So, we shouldn’t ADD to God’s Word “traditions” that we don’t even know “what” Jesus actually said. If these things were important & commanded the Church to follow, God would have made sure these things Jesus said were recorded in Scripture as well…but He didn’t.

I think I’m out of space in this post; but, to sum up: the claims of SS – even if we take your definition as canonical – aren’t substantiated by the Scriptural evidence you provide.

Adding extra-scriptural “tradition” like the Pharisees did with their “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9) is a burden of proof by Christians who reject sola scriptura to prove. But since “adding” man-made “tradition” - even that of the church - to Scripture isn’t found anywhere in Scripture, then there is no Scriptural reason to believe we should follow that “tradition.”

 

[thetazlord]

So what makes you more right than someone else who holds a different view of what SS is?

What authority in the non-Catholic Christian world do you have to pronounce what SS is and is not?

Um…if they violate Scripture, then their “different view” is unscriptual & therefore not sola scriptura. This should be self-explanatory.

 

[fasolislithuan]

Actually, Sola Scriptura is not philosophical, but Biblically-based, when you have an accurate understanding of what it actually means - which I notice from some of the responses here that most don’t. Refer to my other post:

As far as John 6:53 goes, keep in mind that because, at best, the verse is ambiguous, because in Greek, words like “eat,” “drink,” “bread,” “body,” “blood” have numerous definitions, just like they do in English, using Sola Scriptura, to understand that verse, you would have to examine ALL of the relevant surrounding verses (not just a few) beginning with John 6:35, & compare it to the Bible’s message as a whole. But since the OP is about “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need,” not the meaning of John 6:53, if you want to discuss this & obey forum rules, I suggest you begin a new thread…

Irrelevant. Regardless of your personal consideration about of his nature (biblically-based or not), Sola Scriptura respect a crucial issue as the determination of the Bible canon miserably fails and is obviously insufficient. The key word is** insufficient**

In order to appreciate the reason there are the number of books in the Bible - no more, no less - begins with the recognition of the godly attributes (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, written by recognized apostles of God & disciples of Christ or their close contemporaries: Mark → Peter; Luke → Paul; etc) that don’t exist in any other religious or secular texts. The recognition of the Torah dates back to the days of Joshua, which both the Pharisees & Sadducees, as well as the scribes recognized as well in the days of Jesus.

All extrabiblical reasons (godly atributes, lack of contraditions ,recognition of authentic authors). All of these judgements requires, demands critical and** external** studies who subdue the “sole and divine” rule to fallible and human judgements.Thanks for show all of us that we just know, the limitations of Sola Scriptura.

The recognition of the Torah dates back to the days of Joshua, which both the Pharisees & Sadducees, as well as the scribes recognized as well in the days of Jesus. The Prophets were recognized as well by Jesus & His disciples (even though the Sadducees rejected them, only the Pharisees did), which they referred to them as “the Law & the Prophets.” Jesus breaks this down even further by referring to the three-fold division as “the Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms” (Luke 24:44-45), which earlier in the same chapter, Jesus refers to them as “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, & ALL the Scriptures,” which Protestants also recognize these exact same books in their OT, as well as the Jews which are contained in their TaNaKh.

Quicksand. The jewish canon in Jesus time was far to be uniform. In addition of the short canon of Saducees, there was a palestinian canon (pharisees), an alexandrian canon (jews in the exile) and even a essenian canon. Today Ethiopian Jews still use the alexandrian canon not the palestinian one. All of this only shows that each jewish tradition had and have its authority to determine the exact canon. The same can be said about the christian canon. Again, thanks to corroborate that the Bible canon cannot be determined by the insufficiency of Sola Scriptura but by the respective authority of each tradition.

At the end the real question is the same: Who does have the infallible authority to determine the infallible canon of the Bible?

 

[ShanPO]

Um…if they violate Scripture, then their “different view” is unscriptual & therefore not sola scriptura. This should be self-explanatory.

Who are you to say they are violating scripture, though?

Where is the source to which we Catholics can go and see the actual definition of SS so we can say to each other “That Taz guy really knows his stuff so we’ll take his word for it that his definition is valid”?

Is there one (a source that has an actual definition), or did you just make up your own definition like you are claiming others do?

If you just made that definition up, again, where did you get the authority to do so, and how/why is your definition more right than any of the other billion floating around out there?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, read post #50:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12678909&postcount=50

Again, it would help if you knew what Sola Scriptura actually means, which I explained in the post.

Since there is no one to speak with authority regarding what Sola Scriptura means, we cannot accept your definition only, taz.

Since being on this forum I have heard about 30 different definitions of SS. Protestants, as you so rightly assert, can’t even decide among themselves what it means.

What you propose is one definition, but, alas, due to the rotten fruits of the Protestant Reformation, there is no authority to which we can appeal to definitively define SS.