Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[TriuneUnity]

First problem is that this verse was created prior to most New Testament books being written. As such you will have to remove most of the NT books in the Bible that you are reading if you use this verse for Sola Scriptura.

The second issue is that Christ is replying to Satan as Satan is using Old Testment verses against him. His responses are also coming from the Old Testament. They are quoted in the NT as responses. The original thoughts are Old Testament.

The other problem is NT scripture did not exist yet. He is not using it to define Sola Scriptura.

While I won’t argue this passage as exhaustive in teaching sola scriptura, I find the argument you used above to be open to a lot of weaknesses. While it is true that Timothy would’ve only had access to the Old Testament, Paul is not addressing the Old Testament. He is addressing “the scriptures.” Since the statement is inclusive of any scripture that is God-breathed, it would also encompass the New Testament. Because it hadn’t been written in its entirety yet, it is still God-breathed scripture, therefore, Paul’s statement applies to it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No disagreements here, Isa. I was challenging the statement that God does not give revelation without an infallible means of interpreting it. The fact of OT revelation, however, disproves this claim. No one in their right minds, I would hope, would say the Jewish leaders prior to the advent of Christ were infallible on faith and morals.

No. But then, I wouldn’t say that the Christians leaders after the advent of Christ were infallible on faith and morals.

The Church as a Whole is a different story.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Let me ask you this: when Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did He appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by saying “the Catholic church has declared…”?

Well, first of all, I don’t see how it would ever be proper to say that Christ appeals to the authority of his Church; rather, and much more appropriately, it is his Church which appeals to the authority of Christ.

Second, in the same “wilderness” passage to which you alluded, as well as in every other passage where Christ speaks, he appeals, ultimately, not to the Scriptures themselves as the final authority, but *to himself and his own infallible interpretation *of those same Scriptures as being final and binding on all consciences.

Thus the focus is, very much as it always should be, * on Christ*, and never a book, inspired or otherwise.

Clearly then there is absolutely no analogy whatsoever to be draw between Christ’s absolute and infallible use of Scripture and that of the confused, contradictory, fallible, and non-binding opinions of the countless Protestant sects.

Christ alone was the infallible interpreter of Scripture, whether in his confrontation with Satan or in his disputes with the Jews.

And *nowhere *do we find him ever authorizing anyone to “privately interpret” the Sacred Texts. Not even to his own apostles did he grant such authority!

He did however, give power and authority to his one Church, the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) so that it might “teach, govern, and sanctify all men,” and this, “in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.” Eph. 3:21

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matt. 28:18-20

So Christ founded only one Church. And he promised to be with this one Church until the end of time. Of this one Church St. Augustine speaks:

Furthermore, the Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, of which He is the Head and Saviour of His body. Ephesians 5:23 Outside this body the Holy Spirit gives life to no one seeing that, as the apostle says himself, “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us;” Romans 5:5 but he is not a partaker of the divine love who is the enemy of unity. Therefore they have not the Holy Ghost who are outside the Church; for it is written of them, “They separate themselves being sensual, having not the Spirit.” Jude 19 But neither does he receive it who is insincerely in the Church, since this is also the intent of what is written: “For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit.” Wisdom 1:5 If any one, therefore, wishes to receive the Holy Spirit, let him beware of continuing in alienation from the Church, let him beware of entering it in the spirit of dissimulation;

Letter 185:50

 

[Cinette]

Sola scriptura never says that something has to be spelled out word for word in scripture, only that scripture is the final authority to which all other sources of doctrine and practice must defer.

Jesus left the Apostles to take care of His Church and spread the good news.

With what did the Apostles spread the Good News? They didn’t have any bibles in those days.

 

[Cinette]

Again, you’re confusing the description of sola scriptura with the teaching of sola scriptura.

Read on, MacDuff.

1 Tim 3:14-17: 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice that it is scripture that God has given for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, not the Catholic church.

Let me ask you this: when Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did He appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by saying “the Catholic church has declared…”?

I have just come on this thread and find it interesting and hope that it will remain so. Let us discuss, debate and learn - please can we refrain from name calling.

An interesting question has been posed and it would be helpful if the response could be forthcoming: Where in the Bible can we find mention explicitly or implicitly of Sola Scriptura? It is as simple as that. Let us not hedge - can we have a direct answer please.

Scripture is inspired by God, we all know and believe. However, in what form was scripture expressed in the 1st Century?

The name Catholic Church was only mentioned towards the latter part of the 1st Century. It is the “universal church”.

PLEASE let us discussed, intelligently, respectfully and graciously.

Thank you
:yup:

 

[murtad]

What is sola scriptura?

For that matter where is “trinity” in the Bible?

This is a poor analogy. A better analogy refuting Sola Scriptura will be to consider the punishment that Islam meters out to those Muslims who advocate Sola Scriptura (ie Quran-onlyism) instead of primacy of Apostolic Tradition of Muhammad (called Hadith Sunnah). A Muslim who rejects the Hadith is an apostate Muslim and under Sharia must be put to death.

Catholicism and Islam reject sola scriptura, Bible-onlyism and Quran-onlyism respectively.

Islamic “Protestants” are like Dr Rashad Khalifa (who is hailed as the Martin Luther of the Islamic World). These Muslim “Protestants” exist in the Western countries like U.S., Canada, and European Union but in Muslim-majority countries like Egypt and Pakistan, their teachings remain banned.

Also, Sola Scriptura remains a logical fallacy as we need an authority (such as Vatican or Al Azhar) to interpret the Bible or Quran to prevent myriads of strange interpretations as found in denominations such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Anglikans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbytarians, and so on.

 

[PerryJ]

While I won’t argue this passage as exhaustive in teaching sola scriptura, I find the argument you used above to be open to a lot of weaknesses. While it is true that Timothy would’ve only had access to the Old Testament, Paul is not addressing the Old Testament. He is addressing “the scriptures.” Since the statement is inclusive of any scripture that is God-breathed, it would also encompass the New Testament. Because it hadn’t been written in its entirety yet, it is still God-breathed scripture, therefore, Paul’s statement applies to it.

That sounds like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

So this verse applies to scripture that wasn’t written. Scriptures that will in the future be disputed. Not only the DCs but also many other books in the New Testment. Then of course the DCs some years later. So when did this verse take effect? When each book was written? When each individual book was approved? When the DCs were thrown out, for Protestants that don’t believe in the DCs.

What about all of the books that are not included in the Bible but were held as inspired for many years. Some for a very extended time.

So this verse applies to the correct books even though man obviously wouldn’t know which books it applies to.

This lead to the other great fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Where in the Bible are the correct books listed, the inspired books, shown to be inspired. Christ never gave a list of books that are inspired. The come back that they are self authenticating is proven to be historically invalid. Too many books were not accepted at times. Too many books were accepted and then later thrown out. Even the DCs were thrown out by man 1500 years later.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t work because one the Bible never states that it believes in Sola Scriptura. It also doesn’t work because the Bible never defines which books are inspired.

 

[murtad]

That sounds like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

So this verse applies to scripture that wasn’t written. Scriptures that will in the future be disputed. Not only the DCs but also many other books in the New Testment. Then of course the DCs some years later. So when did this verse take effect? When each book was written? When each individual book was approved? When the DCs were thrown out, for Protestants that don’t believe in the DCs.

What about all of the books that are not included in the Bible but were held as inspired for many years. Some for a very extended time.

So this verse applies to the correct books even though man obviously wouldn’t know which books it applies to.

This lead to the other great fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Where in the Bible are the correct books listed, the inspired books, shown to be inspired. Christ never gave a list of books that are inspired. The come back that they are self authenticating is proven to be historically invalid. Too many books were not accepted at times. Too many books were accepted and then later thrown out. Even the DCs were thrown out by man 1500 years later.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t work because one the Bible never states that it believes in Sola Scriptura. It also doesn’t work because the Bible never defines which books are inspired.

Great comment! The Catholics have a longer Bible canon, so do Mormons, but Protestants have a shorter Bible canon. Nestorians have a still shorter New Testament canon - just 22 books, rather than the longer 27-book canon. Armenians use a 28-book NT canon.

Now, I invite all of you, ladies and gentlemen to answer this question: Why does the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East (aka Nestorian) use a shorter 22-book New Testament canon?

Why does His All Holiness Khananya Mar Dinkha IV, the 120th prelate of the Nestorians insist that the original language of the New Testament is Syriac ? Did not Dr George M Lamsa, a Nestorian insist that Saint Paul wrote the book of Romans in his mother tongue Syriac?

Lastly, can a Christian be a Nestorian? If no, why does the Roman Catholic Church recognise the Nestorian sacraments as valid despite the Assyrian Church refusal to accept Saint Mary is the theotokos?

Are we Roman Catholics allowed to honor Saint Nestorius’ (who was defrocked and ex-communicated for this “heresy”) feast day? If no, why? I thought Vatican lifted all anathemas against the Nestorians and told all Catholic laity that Saint Nestorius was misunderstood by Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, first of all, I don’t see how it would ever be proper to say that Christ appeals to the authority of his Church; rather, and much more appropriately, it is his Church which appeals to the authority of Christ.

Second, in the same “wilderness” passage to which you alluded, as well as in every other passage where Christ speaks, he appeals, ultimately, not to the Scriptures themselves as the final authority, but *to himself and his own infallible interpretation *of those same Scriptures as being final and binding on all consciences.

Thus the focus is, very much as it always should be, * on Christ*, and never a book, inspired or otherwise.

Clearly then there is absolutely no analogy whatsoever to be draw between Christ’s absolute and infallible use of Scripture and that of the confused, contradictory, fallible, and non-binding opinions of the countless Protestant sects.

Christ alone was the infallible interpreter of Scripture, whether in his confrontation with Satan or in his disputes with the Jews.

And *nowhere *do we find him ever authorizing anyone to “privately interpret” the Sacred Texts. Not even to his own apostles did he grant such authority!

Seems Satan had his private interpretation, and proof-texts.

He did however, give power and authority to his one Church, the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) so that it might “teach, govern, and sanctify all men,” and this, “in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.” Eph. 3:21

So Christ founded only one Church. And he promised to be with this one Church until the end of time. Of this one Church St. Augustine speaks:

Letter 185:50

Amen.

 

[TriuneUnity]

That sounds like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

So this verse applies to scripture that wasn’t written. Scriptures that will in the future be disputed. Not only the DCs but also many other books in the New Testment. Then of course the DCs some years later. So when did this verse take effect? When each book was written? When each individual book was approved? When the DCs were thrown out, for Protestants that don’t believe in the DCs.

When each book is written. Only God infallibly knows the canon since He is the ultimate author. His act of inspiration is what makes a book "canonical.’’ The fact that there is a canon is that God has inspired some books and not all books.

What about all of the books that are not included in the Bible but were held as inspired for many years. Some for a very extended time.

So this verse applies to the correct books even though man obviously wouldn’t know which books it applies to.

Whether man knows if the book is inspired does not affect whether it is. It’s based on the action of God, not us. The canon is not the object of revelation, it is a result of revelation. Again, because God has inspired some books and not all books results in an inspired canon.

This lead to the other great fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Where in the Bible are the correct books listed, the inspired books, shown to be inspired. Christ never gave a list of books that are inspired. The come back that they are self authenticating is proven to be historically invalid. Too many books were not accepted at times. Too many books were accepted and then later thrown out. Even the DCs were thrown out by man 1500 years later.

One can confess the instrumental nature of the church in being used by God as the primary means of establishing the canon without violating Scripture’s teaching by investing in the Church some notion of infallibility. The foundation of the certainty of our knowledge of the canon is based upon God’s purposes in giving Scripture, not upon the alleged authority of any ecclesiastical body. God did use the church, the gathered body, as a means to establish widespread knowledge knowledge of the canon so that Scripture will function as He has decreed it to function. But to locate the certainty of the canon in an ecclesiastical body is to miss the glory of the truth: The canon’s certainty is found in its author and in the outworking of His purposes for Scripture itself. God’s sovereign power stands behind the revealing of the canon over time through the work of His Spirit, which led to a nearly unanimous view of the New Testament canon. The OT canon was confirmed by Christ Himself during His earthly ministry and so that is a slightly different subject.

You brought up the deuterocanonicals and it is true that they have always been disputed by some or another segment of the Church since the early period, but when you consider the small number of those books disputed in the overall volume of the OT, it’s not nearly as difficult to sort out as some would have us believe. But the DC’s are a topic for a different thread.

Now, human unanimity is no more the sign of this work of completion than human unanimity on the nature of the gospel was necessary for Paul to say that its truth had been known in his day (Gal. 2:5, 14), or for Jude to speak of the “once for all delivered to the saints” faith (Jude 3). Paul and Jude both knew that there were many who disagreed with the truth of the gospel, but this did not diminish the reality of the revelation of its truth. Likewise, pointing to canonical disagreements does not mean God has not accomplished His will in leading His people to a sufficient knowledge of the canon.

 

[PerryJ]

When each book is written. Only God infallibly knows the canon since He is the ultimate author. His act of inspiration is what makes a book "canonical.’’ The fact that there is a canon is that God has inspired some books and not all books.

Whether man knows if the book is inspired does not affect whether it is. It’s based on the action of God, not us. The canon is not the object of revelation, it is a result of revelation. Again, because God has inspired some books and not all books results in an inspired canon.

One can confess the instrumental nature of the church in being used by God as the primary means of establishing the canon without violating Scripture’s teaching by investing in the Church some notion of infallibility. The foundation of the certainty of our knowledge of the canon is based upon God’s purposes in giving Scripture, not upon the alleged authority of any ecclesiastical body. God did use the church, the gathered body, as a means to establish widespread knowledge knowledge of the canon so that Scripture will function as He has decreed it to function. But to locate the certainty of the canon in an ecclesiastical body is to miss the glory of the truth: The canon’s certainty is found in its author and in the outworking of His purposes for Scripture itself. God’s sovereign power stands behind the revealing of the canon over time through the work of His Spirit, which led to a nearly unanimous view of the New Testament canon. The OT canon was confirmed by Christ Himself during His earthly ministry and so that is a slightly different subject.

You brought up the deuterocanonicals and it is true that they have always been disputed by some or another segment of the Church since the early period, but when you consider the small number of those books disputed in the overall volume of the OT, it’s not nearly as difficult to sort out as some would have us believe. But the DC’s are a topic for a different thread.

Now, human unanimity is no more the sign of this work of completion than human unanimity on the nature of the gospel was necessary for Paul to say that its truth had been known in his day (Gal. 2:5, 14), or for Jude to speak of the “once for all delivered to the saints” faith (Jude 3). Paul and Jude both knew that there were many who disagreed with the truth of the gospel, but this did not diminish the reality of the revelation of its truth. Likewise, pointing to canonical disagreements does not mean God has not accomplished His will in leading His people to a sufficient knowledge of the canon.

You are ignoring the point. You talk of God spreading scripture; however, you can not via Sola Scriptura define scripture. You can only define scripture using the Church. I am not on the point of infallibility as that is a seprate thread. The statment that one can use the Church to define scripture; but, once defined the scripture then supercedes the Church is illogical. Is the shoe greater than the shoemaker? God created the shoemaker. The shoemaker took God gifts and made a shoe. The shoe is not greater than the shoe maker.

The Church and Christ are as one. To state the Bible is greater than the Church is to state that the Bible is greater than Christ.

The variations in the Bible do show that Sola Scriptura is a fallacy. Each man can not define his own Bible; yet, he now does. Different groups define different books. Different groups define, eliminate and restructure verses to define his own Bible. I have posted before there are more variants in the NT than words. Some of these are significant. Depending on the Bible you may or may not get the true writings of the apostles. In fact I can make an argument that many of the verses one reads were not in the original Bible. I can make the case that Christ actions as originally written down were changed centuries later to give a different impression of the Lord. Most do not know of these changes. How is Sola Scriptura true if the very verse one reads does not match with Christ’s actions. (I do not have the sources with me; but, can bring them to prove my point. One of my sources is a Protestant.) How can Christ’s intent be different than his actions? How can Christ be so divergent that he wants his writings to be different than his actions.

Why do you limit God’s grace? “leading his people to a sufficient knowledge of the canon”. God did not provide a sufficient knowledge. He gave us the fullness of his truth. Is it harder to believe that Christ gave the knowledge of the Bible and its teachings to his apostles and the people taught by the apostles then to believe that God gave the Church the Bible and nothing else. Each man is to read and figure out the Bible on his own. Each mans is to define his own Bible and what belongs and what doesn’t. The statement that the Holy Spirit is working with each person at his or her pace is illogical. God is truth. He is not illogical as his being is truth and logic.

Back to the main point. Nowhere does Scripture define what is to be in Scriputre; therefore, Sola Scriptura is not valid.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You are ignoring the point. You talk of God spreading scripture; however, you can not via Sola Scriptura define scripture.

Sola scriptura is not intended to define the Scriptures. If you’re under this impression I am sorry, but it doesn’t address it. Sola scriptura is the belief that the Scriptures are (1) sufficient as a rule of faith for the faith and doctrine of the Church (2) That Scripture is sufficient to show those who read it the way of salvation (3) is the only infallible revelation possessed by the church in the post-apostolic period. Nothing about this claim addresses the extent of the canon. They are two separate issues.

You can only define scripture using the Church. I am not on the point of infallibility as that is a seprate thread. The statment that one can use the Church to define scripture; but, once defined the scripture then supercedes the Church is illogical. Is the shoe greater than the shoemaker? God created the shoemaker. The shoemaker took God gifts and made a shoe. The shoe is not greater than the shoe maker.

By using this analogy are you claiming that the Church created Scripture, hence, the Church is the shoemaker? Quite the opposite. God is the shoemaker, the Church is the shoe. Scripture is the direct voice of the shoemaker. So, yes, Scripture is greater than the Church. The Church doesn’t define Scripture. It receives Scripture. God defined Scripture by His act of giving it to us. God providentially revealed the extent of the canon to the Church.

The Church and Christ are as one. To state the Bible is greater than the Church is to state that the Bible is greater than Christ.

There is no conflict there; the Scriptures are the voice of Christ, and hence, possess His authority.

The variations in the Bible do show that Sola Scriptura is a fallacy. Each man can not define his own Bible; yet, he now does. Different groups define different books. Different groups define, eliminate and restructure verses to define his own Bible.

And this has no effect on the extent of the canon.

I have posted before there are more variants in the NT than words. Some of these are significant. Depending on the Bible you may or may not get the true writings of the apostles. In fact I can make an argument that many of the verses one reads were not in the original Bible. I can make the case that Christ actions as originally written down were changed centuries later to give a different impression of the Lord. Most do not know of these changes. How is Sola Scriptura true if the very verse one reads does not match with Christ’s actions. (I do not have the sources with me; but, can bring them to prove my point. One of my sources is a Protestant.) How can Christ’s intent be different than his actions? How can Christ be so divergent that he wants his writings to be different than his actions.

I am not sure what you’re referring to here as it would have to be taken on example.

Why do you limit God’s grace? “leading his people to a sufficient knowledge of the canon”. God did not provide a sufficient knowledge. He gave us the fullness of his truth. Is it harder to believe that Christ gave the knowledge of the Bible and its teachings to his apostles and the people taught by the apostles then to believe that God gave the Church the Bible and nothing else. Each man is to read and figure out the Bible on his own. Each mans is to define his own Bible and what belongs and what doesn’t. The statement that the Holy Spirit is working with each person at his or her pace is illogical. God is truth. He is not illogical as his being is truth and logic.

And this is not what Sola Scriptura is claiming, vis a vie each individual person receiving a piece of revelation. That is a strawman argument and you know it. You’re wiser than that, Perry.

Back to the main point. Nowhere does Scripture define what is to be in Scriputre; therefore, Sola Scriptura is not valid.

Nor does Sola Scriptura claim that Scripture does this. You’re arguing against a position that either doesn’t exist, or is a position that is not Sola Scriptura.

 

[PerryJ]

Where in scripture is your thought that the Bible is the only infallible revelation possessed by the church in the post-apostolic age?

Your statement that the difference in the Bibles “has no effect on the canon" is again not the point. We can not have Sola Scriptura unless there is a defined canon known to man. A defined canon that only God’s know is pointless. God doesn’t need the Bible. A canon known to man is a basic element for the Bible to exist. As we have multiple Bibles with varying books and verses shows that Sola Scriptura does not exist. For Sola Scriptura to exist in this format one would have to have Invincible Ignorance applied to the Bible. If one needs Invincible Ignorance with the Bible then what is the point of the Bible.

I do not believe God gave us sufficient knowledge. I believe he gave us full knowledge. Again the point of God giving us only sufficient knowledge to man is illogical. Your statement that Sola Scriptura doesn’t claim this point is true; however, it is a reality caused by Sola Scriptura. Man is given limited information based upon which Bible he picks and what verses were translated correctly. The proof is the variation of beliefs. The proof is the variations in the Bible. Sola Scriptura’s basic premise is that one is using the correct word of God. As the word of God has been defined differently over time in significant ways Sola Scriptura can not be the rule of faith. It is one tool of faith. The Church protects us from changes in the Bible as the Church defined and interpreted the Bible. The Church is the rule of faith as it synonymous with God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Where in scripture is your thought that the Bible is the only infallible revelation possessed by the church in the post-apostolic age?

Can you point to any other source to which the apostles attest is God-breathed revelation? I am sure one answer you could give would be oral tradition. In that case, we are in agreement, because it was revelation. But in this case you must show that there is something necessary for the doctrine and life of the Church that is substantively different in tradition than what we have in Scripture.

Your statement that the difference in the Bibles “has no effect on the canon" is again not the point. We can not have Sola Scriptura unless there is a defined canon known to man. A defined canon that only God’s know is pointless. God doesn’t need the Bible. A canon known to man is a basic element for the Bible to exist. As we have multiple Bibles with varying books and verses shows that Sola Scriptura does not exist. For Sola Scriptura to exist in this format one would have to have Invincible Ignorance applied to the Bible. If one needs Invincible Ignorance with the Bible then what is the point of the Bible.

Your point is only true if we do NOT have a canon that has been revealed to man. Can you please point me to any biblical translation where the canon of the NT is different? Did the church “create” the canon at the Council of Rome, Hippo, or Carthage? The Church had been using a canon of NT Scripture long before any official canon was determined. Athanasius had a list of books which is identical to modern Protestant translations. And of course, the NT letters had circulated in various congregations for hundreds of years prior. Rome, by its own standards, did not give a de fide list of canon until Trent.

I do not believe God gave us sufficient knowledge. I believe he gave us full knowledge. Again the point of God giving us only sufficient knowledge to man is illogical.

We are given full knowledge in Jesus Christ. Ultimately, both Scripture and the Church do not compare to the person of Christ Himself as far as what has been accomplished in the plan of revelation. However, we have the words and revelation of that Christ in Scripture and no where else.

Your statement that Sola Scriptura doesn’t claim this point is true; however, it is a reality caused by Sola Scriptura. Man is given limited information based upon which Bible he picks and what verses were translated correctly. The proof is the variation of beliefs. The proof is the variations in the Bible.

So your claim is that the Bible is only sufficient to prove its insufficiency? Do the textual variations affect whether Rome also sees Scripture as God-inspired revelation?

Sola Scriptura’s basic premise is that one is using the correct word of God. As the word of God has been defined differently over time in significant ways Sola Scriptura can not be the rule of faith. It is one tool of faith. The Church protects us from changes in the Bible as the Church defined and interpreted the Bible. The Church is the rule of faith as it synonymous with God.

If this is the standard you are setting upon the canon of Scripture; that is, it must not have any variations from the original and the Church must protect the Scriptures from any variation, then you must demonstrate that the Church has done so.

 

[PerryJ]

Can you point to any other source to which the apostles attest is God-breathed revelation? I am sure one answer you could give would be oral tradition. In that case, we are in agreement, because it was revelation. But in this case you must show that there is something necessary for the doctrine and life of the Church that is substantively different in tradition than what we have in Scripture.

Your point is only true if we do NOT have a canon that has been revealed to man. Can you please point me to any biblical translation where the canon of the NT is different? Did the church “create” the canon at the Council of Rome, Hippo, or Carthage? The Church had been using a canon of NT Scripture long before any official canon was determined. Athanasius had a list of books which is identical to modern Protestant translations. And of course, the NT letters had circulated in various congregations for hundreds of years prior. Rome, by its own standards, did not give a de fide list of canon until Trent.

We are given full knowledge in Jesus Christ. Ultimately, both Scripture and the Church do not compare to the person of Christ Himself as far as what has been accomplished in the plan of revelation. However, we have the words and revelation of that Christ in Scripture and no where else.

So your claim is that the Bible is only sufficient to prove its insufficiency? Do the textual variations affect whether Rome also sees Scripture as God-inspired revelation?

If this is the standard you are setting upon the canon of Scripture; that is, it must not have any variations from the original and the Church must protect the Scriptures from any variation, then you must demonstrate that the Church has done so.

I am not sure I follow your first point. Are you stating that the apostles were breathed on just to define the Bible? From my stand point they were breathed on to create the Church not the Bible. I may be missing your point.

All of the Bible is inspired by God and the NT and OT reveals each other. One can not limit this discussion to the NT. We have multiple versions of canon for the Bible. For Sola Scriptura to be valid we would have to have one canon.

Your third point is not found in the Bible. The Bible never professes Sola Scriptura. As you know most of the quotes people use to support Sola Scriptura incorrectly use the term “word”. This term is really referincing Christ himself. To go to Thomas Aquinas thought, Christ is the word as Christ is the action of God.

The variants do not impact my faith. One of the sources I have read, the author became agnostic after completing his work. He lost faith as he no longer believed the Bible was infallible as he saw how much man changed the Bible to meet the needs of the time. (not with a negative intent) This combined with the amount of judgement used to translate the Bible showed him how much it was the personal interpetation of the translsator versus God’s word. Note I did not find anything so shattering that would over turn all of our beliefs. It coud impact some thougths for someone that is a Bible only Christian. (I will try and bring in some samples Monday for you to look at.) My point is not that the Bible is irrelevant. My point is the Church is needed to define the teachings of the Lord. We do not have the Ten Commandments written in stone.

The Church does not need to stop all variations in Scripture as the Church is the protector of the teaching via Christ.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Likewise, pointing to canonical disagreements does not mean God has not accomplished His will in leading His people to a sufficient knowledge of the canon.

But what does “sufficient knowledge of the canon” mean? And who can arrive at this “sufficient knowledge?”

And do you really suppose that a man such as Luther, who, of his own “authority,” rejected several books of Scripture, and who said many a strange thing indeed, among which are the following, would be capable of determining the canon of Scripture?

(English and Luther’s Latin)

My teachings will stand, and the Pope will fall, although he should be supported by all the gates of hell and the powers of the air and the earth and the sea. They have provoked me to war; and war they shall have. They despised the offered peace, and therefore they shall not have peace.

Let God see who will give in first, the Pope or Luther….

Dogmata mea stabunt, et Papa cadet, invitis omnibus portis inferi et potestatibus aeris et terrae et maris. Ipsi me provocaverunt ad bellum, bellum igitur habebunt. Pacem oblatam contemserunt, pacem igitur non habebunt.

Deus viderit, uter primo fessus defecerit, Papa an Lutherus…

Martinus Lutherus contra Henricum Regem Angliæ (Martin Luther against Henry King of England), September, 1522.

Source: Luther’s Latin Works:

D. Martini Lutheri, Opera Latina varii argumenti, (volumes V & VI in one), vol. VI (1872, pp. 521 ff), Dr. Henricus Schmidt, Frankfort-on-the-Main, Heyder & Zimmer, p. 392
books.google.com/books?id=XdMCAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA392&dq=%22ad+bellum,+bellum+igitur+habebunt%22&lr=

Here is the only English translation I could find of this shockingly abusive work:

Luther’s reply to King Henry VIII: now first Englished after the lapse of four centuries, By Martin Luther,Translated by the Rev. Edgar Simmons Buchanan, M.A., B.Sc., New York: Charles A. Swift, 1928.

Includes introductory epistle to Sebastian Schlick, July 15, 1522.
books.google.com/books?id=EUIAAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Martinus+Lutherus+contra+Henricum+Regem%22&dq=%22Martinus+Lutherus+contra+Henricum+Regem%22&lr=&client=firefox-a&pgis=1

worldcat.org/oclc/8278224&referer=brief_results

Full text from Project Canterbury

And elsewhere in his writings, Luther speaks even more incredibly!

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven- to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [1 Pet. 3:15]. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel.

For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved.

Martin Luther, Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, July 1522.

Luther’s Works, vol. 39, Church and Ministry I, Eric W. Gritsch, Helmut T. Lehman eds., Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603397, pp. 248-249.
amazon.com/Luthers-Works-…/dp/0800603397

 

[TriuneUnity]

I am not sure I follow your first point. Are you stating that the apostles were breathed on just to define the Bible? From my stand point they were breathed on to create the Church not the Bible. I may be missing your point.

Well, you may be thinking of breathed on in the sense of John 20:22 where the apostles are breathed on to forgive sins in the name of Christ. What I am referring to is their words and writings being breathed on so that the truths they taught and wrote down are the very truths of God Himself. It would refer to the action of giving revelation. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

All of the Bible is inspired by God and the NT and OT reveals each other. One can not limit this discussion to the NT. We have multiple versions of canon for the Bible. For Sola Scriptura to be valid we would have to have one canon.

But an appeal to church authority to having defined the canon is also incorrect as there are churches which also claim to have defined the canon that have a different canon. A good example would be the Orthodox, which has a longer list of OT canon than Rome uses.

Your third point is not found in the Bible. The Bible never professes Sola Scriptura. As you know most of the quotes people use to support Sola Scriptura incorrectly use the term “word”. This term is really referincing Christ himself. To go to Thomas Aquinas thought, Christ is the word as Christ is the action of God.

The context would have to define the usage of the “word” in various passages of Scripture. I do agree that a lot of it is intended to refer to Christ. Many examples, though, especially referencing the OT, the word “word” refers to the written word. How are you defining sola scriptura in order to say that the Bible doesn’t teach it?

The variants do not impact my faith. One of the sources I have read, the author became agnostic after completing his work. He lost faith as he no longer believed the Bible was infallible as he saw how much man changed the Bible to meet the needs of the time. (not with a negative intent) This combined with the amount of judgement used to translate the Bible showed him how much it was the personal interpetation of the translsator versus God’s word. Note I did not find anything so shattering that would over turn all of our beliefs. It coud impact some thougths for someone that is a Bible only Christian. (I will try and bring in some samples Monday for you to look at.) My point is not that the Bible is irrelevant. My point is the Church is needed to define the teachings of the Lord. We do not have the Ten Commandments written in stone.

It’s good that the variants don’t affect your faith on Scripture I don’t disagree that the Church is needed in order to proclaim, teach, and defend the faith. The Bible doesn’t preach itself. That is not a claim that is made by Protestants who adhere to Reformation theology. However, the Church can only defend it’s teachings if it can appeal to its own teachings being coinherent with what the apostles taught. And the only place we can go to to do that is the apostles own writings in God-breathed Scripture.

 

[PerryJ]

Well, you may be thinking of breathed on in the sense of John 20:22 where the apostles are breathed on to forgive sins in the name of Christ. What I am referring to is their words and writings being breathed on so that the truths they taught and wrote down are the very truths of God Himself. It would refer to the action of giving revelation. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

But an appeal to church authority to having defined the canon is also incorrect as there are churches which also claim to have defined the canon that have a different canon. A good example would be the Orthodox, which has a longer list of OT canon than Rome uses.

The context would have to define the usage of the “word” in various passages of Scripture. I do agree that a lot of it is intended to refer to Christ. Many examples, though, especially referencing the OT, the word “word” refers to the written word. How are you defining sola scriptura in order to say that the Bible doesn’t teach it?

It’s good that the variants don’t affect your faith on Scripture I don’t disagree that the Church is needed in order to proclaim, teach, and defend the faith. The Bible doesn’t preach itself. That is not a claim that is made by Protestants who adhere to Reformation theology. However, the Church can only defend it’s teachings if it can appeal to its own teachings being coinherent with what the apostles taught. And the only place we can go to to do that is the apostles own writings in God-breathed Scripture.

The variant between the RCC and orthodox is a thread of its own. In what I have read it is really more a matter of format than content. It is a confusing issue though.

I agree with your statement concerning the use of the term “word”.

I agree that the Bible is an essential component of what the Church preaches. I also do not believe it is in error. I am sure you know the rest of what I am going to say. I just don’t believe or find support for Sola.

 

[justasking4]

And that reasoning answers the many and varied interpretations of “doctrine and practice” how ???

.

This same thing can also be applied to the Catholic church. Not everyone in the Catholic church believes exactly alike,

 

[Cinette]

This same thing can also be applied to the Catholic church. Not everyone in the Catholic church believes exactly alike,

The teachings of the Church are always the same - there are people who know the teachings, some might not be fully formed and some ignorant. In my understand when we say that the Church is One it means One belief. Of course with over 1 billion Catholics you will get some who may be ignorant of the Church’s teaching.