Sola Scriptura Answer to a Modern Question

[CopticChristian]

This is from the Postings Of Radical.

I would suggest that sola scriptura is an answer to a rather modern question. That question could be worded as: “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” The answer to that question would not always have been the same. The answer in 30 AD is different from the answer in 60 AD and both of those answers could be different from the answer in 1520 AD (or in 2008 AD, for that matter).
The aspect of “full message” calls into consideration the question of whether scripture is materially and/or formally sufficient.
The “free from any error” aspect together with the “sola” aspect of the answer calls into question whether tradition contains any error.
The “at this time” aspect recognizes that what has provided by God has changed over time. In 30 AD the answer to the question would have been “in Jesus’s teaching”. In 60 AD the answer to the question would have been “in the inspired teachings, both oral and recorded, of the apsotles and the Jewish scriptures”. The fact that the correct answer in 30 or 60 AD is not “sola scriptura” does not mean that the correct answer could not be sola scriptura in 1520 AD as things changed in the interim.

What sayest thou?

 

[stevekehl]

I think Protestants would agree with this statement. As time passed after the death of the original apostles and the Gospel spread into the world there was no commandments regarding lifestyle like the law of Moses. Other that the command to not eat meat offered to idols, sexual immorality, and eating blood, pagans were free to keep cultural traditions along with Christianity. I believe God inspired the Catholic Church to compile the Bible when it did and inclued the books God wanted.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think Protestants would agree with this statement. As time passed after the death of the original apostles and the Gospel spread into the world there was no commandments regarding lifestyle like the law of Moses. Other that the command to not eat meat offered to idols, sexual immorality, and eating blood, pagans were free to keep cultural traditions along with Christianity. I believe God inspired the Catholic Church to compile the Bible when it did and inclued the books God wanted.

Try to hold that thought and believe it when Paul says that the Gentiles who have not Circumcision are a law unto themselves.

You would conclude that the only people that had a lifestyle were those that had the law of moses?

Paul says that the Uncircumcised that had not the law did what the law required and were circumcised of the heart. If Circumcision is the second step into the covenant, the first being be fruitful and multiply then those outside the covenant lived as if they had the law, becase according to Paul they were circumcised of the heart and lived as if they had the law…

Do you still hold to your thought?

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings CopticChristian,

I would say that the fullness of Truth subsides in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Sola Scriptura has been proven to be a false doctrine. What more can I say?

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[philial]

The fullness of Revelation resides within the Body of Christ, of which Scripture, as defined a full thousand years and more prior to 1520, is an essential element. But Scripture has never stood alone, nor does it, within itself, claim to. That is an invention.

 

[Steven_John]

“Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?”

In heaven.
The bible has been narrated, interpreted, translated, selected by humans and so on.
If one asks where is it found on earth, it is in the spirit, but we see the spirit oft through humans that are not free of error.
Blessings

 

[Steven_John]

I believe God inspired the Catholic Church to compile the Bible when it did and inclued the books God wanted.

Asking in a genuine way, can you state why or how you came to believe this or is it of the mysterious.
I guess its the latter as there are some things i believe but cant explicitly state a source.
Blessing to you and yours

 

[CopticChristian]

Asking in a genuine way, can you state why or how you came to believe this or is it of the mysterious.
I guess its the latter as there are some things i believe but cant explicitly state a source.
Blessing to you and yours

As you wait for an answer to your sincere question may I ask you how you believe the Bible that we have today came to be?

 

[manualman]

"The fact that the correct answer in 30 or 60 AD is not “sola scriptura” does not mean that the correct answer could not be sola scriptura in 1520 AD as things changed in the interim. "

This is not a terribly bad answer for a protestant to give, except that it nicely tees up a devastating catholic response.

If you have so far accepted the fact that Jesus empowered the apostles to teach authoritatively, that apostles can be replaced upon their death (see after Judas) and the office expanded beyond 12 (See St. Paul), then IF, as you contend, there came a point at which this infallible protection to teach the gospel correctly was ended (say perhaps with the death of the last of the 13), shouldn’t that little detail be mentioned somewhere in the teachings of those apostles? It’s kind of a big deal, no? The apostles clearly began delegating their authority to local bishops right there in the New Testmament period. Did it really never occur to any of them to say “Hey now, you’re in charge here, but your authority is merely symbolic and honorary whereas that of the apostles comes from Christ and ends with our death.” ??

IMO, that’s a rather large rabbit to pull from your hat with no Scriptural support when you claim that all your dogma is based on Scripture itself.

 

[CopticChristian]

"The fact that the correct answer in 30 or 60 AD is not “sola scriptura” does not mean that the correct answer could not be sola scriptura in 1520 AD as things changed in the interim. "

This is not a terribly bad answer for a protestant to give, except that it nicely tees up a devastating catholic response.

If you have so far accepted the fact that Jesus empowered the apostles to teach authoritatively, that apostles can be replaced upon their death (see after Judas) and the office expanded beyond 12 (See St. Paul), then IF, as you contend, there came a point at which this infallible protection to teach the gospel correctly was ended (say perhaps with the death of the last of the 13), shouldn’t that little detail be mentioned somewhere in the teachings of those apostles? It’s kind of a big deal, no? The apostles clearly began delegating their authority to local bishops right there in the New Testmament period. Did it really never occur to any of them to say “Hey now, you’re in charge here, but your authority is merely symbolic and honorary whereas that of the apostles comes from Christ and ends with our death.” ??

IMO, that’s a rather large rabbit to pull from your hat with no Scriptural support when you claim that all your dogma is based on Scripture itself.

I agreee with you. Unfortunately Radical, the formula maker of this notion has not provided an answer. If you look at Radical’s only post and follow the thread there is a notion that Radical is not asking questions, rather teaching another member Pneuma07. You can find that thread at:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=306820

The answer that I will provide on behalf of Radical is this from reading the post.

Well, Paul’s churches seem to run into problems as soon as he “left the building”. Should we expect that those following after the apostles would somehow do better?

If I thought the Apostolic Churches were truly apostolic, it would be of great discomfort…but it is MHO that, in all likelihood, they are not any more apostolic than the baptist church down the block…in some non-core areas more so and in some non-core areas less so.

Radical in this post is teaching Pneuma07 their theology, ecclesiology, Christology and understanding of the Eucharist. It is enlightening. There are no questions asked.

 

[fred_conty]

The number of answers why sola scriptura is not sufficient is 30,000 + 1, the number of different protestant churches and the number of catholic churches.

 

[CopticChristian]

The number of answers why sola scriptura is not sufficient is 30,000 + 1, the number of different protestant churches and the number of catholic churches.

Radical would say

I mistrust anyone or anything that claims to possess a “monopoly” with respect to God, fullness of truth etc. My first exposure to that sort of claim was a bizarre anabaptist group.

I see people such as Hus, Luther, Francis, Calvin and Zwingli and their supporters and followers as shaping doctrine…w/o the support of the people the ideas of the reformers would not have gone far.

First I wouldn’t ask it this way… I would say that I am trying to determine which denomination possesses the fullest partial knowledge. (1 Cor 13:9) …and I do so b/c I believe that it is part of God’s plan for my life.

 

[lyrikal]

This is from the Postings Of Radical.

I would suggest that sola scriptura is an answer to a rather modern question. That question could be worded as: “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” The answer to that question would not always have been the same. The answer in 30 AD is different from the answer in 60 AD and both of those answers could be different from the answer in 1520 AD (or in 2008 AD, for that matter).
The aspect of “full message” calls into consideration the question of whether scripture is materially and/or formally sufficient.
The “free from any error” aspect together with the “sola” aspect of the answer calls into question whether tradition contains any error.
The “at this time” aspect recognizes that what has provided by God has changed over time. In 30 AD the answer to the question would have been “in Jesus’s teaching”. In 60 AD the answer to the question would have been “in the inspired teachings, both oral and recorded, of the apsotles and the Jewish scriptures”. The fact that the correct answer in 30 or 60 AD is not “sola scriptura” does not mean that the correct answer could not be sola scriptura in 1520 AD as things changed in the interim.

First of all, this is a rather easy argument to refute. All one has to do is ask “Where does the Bible teach that Oral Tradition will no longer be necessary and that all we will need in the future is the Written Traditions (Bible)?” There is nothing in the Bible that even hints it. In fact, the Scriptures are in contrast with that argument because the Scriptures tell us over and over again to follow the Oral Traditions as well as the Written Traditions (Bible). There is nothing that suggests that we are to ignore the Oral teachings in the future. The argument being made above by Radical assumes a sufficiency of the Scriptures. I agree that the Scriptures CAN be sufficient but ONLY if they are seen in the light of Sacred Tradition and interpreted by the Magesterium (which is what the Early Fathers taught). We can show many quotes from the Church Fathers that hint at the fact that Scripture is sufficient (St. Athanasius is one) but what modern day Protestants fail to understand is that what he means is that it is sufficient when it is looked at through the eyes of Tradition and interpreted by the Church (the Bishops). If one were to take things out of context, then it would sound like some of the Fathers taught Sola Scriptura. But taking their writings as a whole AND ALSO their practices, the idea that they taught Sola Scriptura does not hold water. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, I am ready to show where you err.

The argument above makes some bold claims. It is actually a circular argument. The question can be asked “where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” I’m assuming the answer would be “No where. But what was true in the first Century is not always true in other centuries to follow. So in the First Century, Tradition was important but in the future, it was no longer necessary because the Scriptures are sufficient” This answer contradicts the very argument that is being made. It says Scripture is sufficient. If it is sufficient, it would have taught SUFFICIENTLY the argument being presented above. The Apostles never dreamed of such a practice because they were Jews and the Jews interpreted the Scriptures in light of their Oral Tradition and had something called the Seat of Moses (authority).

The answer above assumes a modern day Protestant version of Christianity. In order to understand the Scriptures, we have to have an understanding of 1st Century Judaism and their practices. You can ask a Jew even today “Which is closer to Judaism, the way Catholics view the Word of God or the way Protestants view the Word of God?” They will tell you “Catholics” because they interpret the Scriptures in light of the Oral Traditions not opposed to it.

Now, let’s assume the above argument is true and does hold water. The question then would be “When would Oral Tradition no longer be necessary? What year? What century?” The question that would then follow would be “If it was necessary in the beginning, why was it necessary? If we are to throw it away in the future, are we throwing away any teachings out the door as well? If not, then why was it ever there in the first place if it had no important teachings to teach us?”

 

[lyrikal]

What about the Canon of the Bible? Doesn’t that come from Tradition? So if Oral Tradition is to be thrown out, it could not have been before late 4th century (when the Canon was formed in the Council of Rome in 382 AD). The argument above assumes that Tradition doesn’t have anything important to teach us today. The argument above seems to be a cop out of the question “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” I think (IMHO) it is a weak argument to make and here is why:

1.) The argument suggests that truth can change. What was true in the first century does not always have to be true in future centuries. Why stop here though? What about the Nature of Christ? Trinity? Can those truths change as well? If not, why not? The argument suggests that something as big as the Word of God can change in the way it is transmitted and used, why stop there? Since Oral Tradition was viewed as either The Word of God OR a necessary part in understanding what the Word of God is saying, then if it is thrown out, then how are we to understand the Word of God in it’s totality? This is a big issue and something as big as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Nature of Christ. So why stop there?

2.) The accusation we Catholics get from Protestants of Development of Dogma should no longer be used if one is to make the argument above. The argument above is not a development of dogma but a change of dogma and also a change of how dogma is to be determined. If one is to make the argument presented above by Radical, then one can take any doctrines that they don’t like and say “It could have been true in the 1st Century, but it doesn’t mean it’s true for me today…”

Hope that helps. God bless.

 

[ChrisB103]

I think Protestants would agree with this statement. As time passed after the death of the original apostles and the Gospel spread into the world there was no commandments regarding lifestyle like the law of Moses. Other that the command to not eat meat offered to idols, sexual immorality, and eating blood, pagans were free to keep cultural traditions along with Christianity. I believe God inspired the Catholic Church to compile the Bible when it did and inclued the books God wanted.

So if you agree that the full message that God gives to us (or at least its form) can change throughout the ages, what is it that caused it to change from oral and written to solely written?

God bless,
Chris

 

[PJM]

=CopticChristian;8311432]This is from the Postings Of Radical.

What sayest thou?

“Thou” IS sadly but clearly wrong

Truth is TRUTH no no-matter its age and no matter how one freely chooses to deny, alter, change, refuse, or ignore it. Faith belief and Moral Truth remains the thruth… AMEN!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[fred_conty]

The statement was made from Radical, "In 30 AD the answer to the question would have been “in Jesus’s teaching”. But “only the bible” refers to a BOOK which didn’t exist.

 

[1sicht]

I would say that the fullness of Truth subsides in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

“Subsides”?!? Really? Then, there isn’t any left.

:twocents: The oral “tradition” and the written tradition said the same thing: they weren’t “half and half.” Each of them was a mirror image of the other, one “in the air/ear,” the other on papyrus.

that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written (1Cor. 4:6)

 

[fred_conty]

Radical said, "I mistrust anyone or anything that claims to possess a “monopoly” with respect to God, fullness of truth etc. "

Let’s do the math.

Let’s think about that word “monopoly”.
Now think about the word “God”.
Look alike?
Would His truth be any different?

1 God
1 truth
1 catholic church.
That works!.

1 God
3,000 churches
3,000 truths
Does that work?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written (1Cor. 4:6)

And the above verse was written by St. Paul in defense or advocating sola scriptura?