Sola scriptura challenge

[happilycatholic]

Sola Scriptura, if I understand correctly, allows a Protestant to believe in traditions of man as long as they appear in the Bible.

So, we’re back at square one. Some catholic Traditions are implicit rather than explicit.

This does not however answer the question in the OP. I think we all know what SS is and what it is not. What the OP asks is what 1 Timothy 3:14-16 means to you.

Now that’s not so hard is it?

 

[happilycatholic]

Well for my short time in this forum, I also have found one particularly glaring truth. That is that Catholics disagree amongst themselves.

I won’t bother to repeat what I have learned that Catholics can not even agree on.

You know, I see this a lot. The charge is on you. The question should be answered from your POV, not someone elses. You are asking us to define what SS means to you. We cannot do that.

You are simply creating a diversion rather than answering a simple question.

So, with respect to your adhereance to SS, how do you explain the meaning of 1 Timothy 3: 14-16?

It’s pretty simple. What do you think it means?

 

[happilycatholic]

By the way, we should post the entire excerpt for clarification:

14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

Okay, just so we all catch what is being said here is that *“if I am delayed, I **write **to you so that you may know…” *

In other words, my preference is to pass this along in person, but if I cannot, I am writing this so that you will have the instruction you need. That seems to be the reason for the whole of the NT, no?

Christ could not be here any longer so He/The Holy Spirit commissioned and Divinely Inspired the NT so that we could have instruction upon His absence.

Nowhere does Paul say that if I do not visit, my written letter negates anything else I’ve said in person. The Scriptures are a Divinely Inspired way to give us instruction. The same was being done before Christ Ascended. There is no reason to assume that Christ meant for us to do away with the authority of His Apostles after the NT was written.

In other words, the authority of the Church is not done away with upon the commission of the Scriptures of the NT. It was not done in that way before and neither is it so now. That is why you cannot refute 1 Timothy 3: 14-16 with any Scriptural reference to the authority of Scripture.

Anyhoo, just MHO.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Meh…I’ve decided to come back and just ignore obnoxious posters. These forums are fascinating to me for some silly reason.

You know, I see this a lot. The charge is on you. The question should be answered from your POV, not someone elses. You are asking us to define what SS means to you. We cannot do that.

Technically the one making the claim is the one doing the defining. So if you are saying that Sola Scriptura is false, you should be telling me exactly what it is and why it is false. If I were saying it is true, I should be telling you exactly what it is and why it is true.

But since you asked what SS means to me…see a previous post of mine: This is admittedly my own that I have thought through and isn’t all that theological. So since I am NotTooSmart, there are probably holes in it.

Basically I adhere to SS as a practice and not a doctrine. My reasoning (cut and pasted elsewhere)

Well first of all, it means that I don’t have to spend 50 pages in a thread claiming that 2 Timothy 3:16 is the magic prooftext for Sola Scriptura. Maybe it is, but I am not there yet either.

What it does mean for me is this. Now follow my logic carefully here.

• When I became a Christian, I was led by the Holy Spirit to a local Charismatic Church in my home town.
• This church claimed that the Bible was the inspired word of God per 2 Timothy 3:16 and I believed it. I honestly can’t remember if it used that Scripture to justify Sola Scriptura but I don’t think so.
• The leadership of this church did not claim for itself that it was “incapable of being incorrect or anything like that”. Instead it taught from the Scriptures to the best of its ability and I received its teaching with humility as a New Christian should.
• Along the way, I have encountered claims that have contradicted the teaching of the church. As one who is told to “examine everything carefully and hold fast to what is good”, I examine these contrary claims in light of what I know to be the inspired Word of God per 2 Timothy 3:16.
• Along the way, I have also encountered alternate claims of authority, be they the book of Mormon, JW, you all, or prophet Joe in the next town over. Being told to “examine everything carefully”, I examine these alternate claims in light of what I know to be the inspired Word of God and find these alternate claims to be unconvincing.

You are simply creating a diversion rather than answering a simple question.

So, with respect to your adhereance to SS, how do you explain the meaning of 1 Timothy 3: 14-16?

It’s pretty simple. What do you think it means?

Actually this is the first time the question was posed to me, unless I was stupid and brain dead and didn’t see it, which is always a distinct possibility.

First of all, in context this is not Paul teaching about the church (look at the beginning of the chapter). In context it is Paul talking about conduct within the church, specifically in leadership positions.

In that context Paul states that he wrote these things on how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which he then defines as the church of the living God. At the end of this section he adds the expression “the pillar and support of the truth”.

I notice nothing in this passage about the church being "incapable of being incorrect when teaching Scripture or anything like that. In fact there is nothing in this passage at all that could tell me what the relationship between the church and the written Word of God is. So I can not on the basis of this verse make any leaps in Scripture that are not there.

So we go back to the quote above on how I practice Sola Scriptura. In my reasoning, you will notice the word “church” featured in almost all of those posts. You will read that my practice of Sola Scriptura is not in an independent vacuum separate from “the church”. I assumed (and still assume) that the church (as the pillar and support of the truth) has the function to teach me the written word of God, and I receive(d) its teaching with joy and gladness.

 

[Peter_J]

Basically I adhere to SS as a practice and not a doctrine.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t get that.

Hmmm … I guess you’d have a better shot at convincing me if you said “Sola Scriptura is a truth but not a doctrine” rather than “Sola Scriptura is a practice and not a doctrine”.

 

[happilycatholic]

Meh…I’ve decided to come back and just ignore obnoxious posters. These forums are fascinating to me for some silly reason.

Technically the one making the claim is the one doing the defining. So if you are saying that Sola Scriptura is false, you should be telling me exactly what it is and why it is false. If I were saying it is true, I should be telling you exactly what it is and why it is true.

But since you asked what SS means to me…see a previous post of mine: This is admittedly my own that I have thought through and isn’t all that theological. So since I am NotTooSmart, there are probably holes in it.

Basically I adhere to SS as a practice and not a doctrine. My reasoning (cut and pasted elsewhere)

Actually this is the first time the question was posed to me, unless I was stupid and brain dead and didn’t see it, which is always a distinct possibility.

First of all, in context this is not Paul teaching about the church (look at the beginning of the chapter). In context it is Paul talking about conduct within the church, specifically in leadership positions.

In that context Paul states that he wrote these things on how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which he then defines as the church of the living God. At the end of this section he adds the expression “the pillar and support of the truth”.

I notice nothing in this passage about the church being "incapable of being incorrect when teaching Scripture or anything like that. In fact there is nothing in this passage at all that could tell me what the relationship between the church and the written Word of God is. So I can not on the basis of this verse make any leaps in Scripture that are not there.

So we go back to the quote above on how I practice Sola Scriptura. In my reasoning, you will notice the word “church” featured in almost all of those posts. You will read that my practice of Sola Scriptura is not in an independent vacuum separate from “the church”. I assumed (and still assume) that the church (as the pillar and support of the truth) has the function to teach me the written word of God, and I receive(d) its teaching with joy and gladness.

Okay, see I think this is where we get the diversion going. No one made a claim. It was a question. What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

You were asked to present a Bible verse that states that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth. You presented a citation. And actually one that states:

15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. *1 Timothy 3:15 *

This verse does not say that Scripture is the pillar and foundation. I think that is the OP’s problem with your response. And also notice although Paul was speaking of conduct within the Church, he clearly defines the Church in the verse.

Also, it clearly presents Paul’s preference. His preference is to visit, but if that should not come about, he will write. Do you find anywhere in Scripture where Paul says do away with everything you’ve heard me say and keep only that which is written? Paul’s direction is merely a statement that he will take care of them whether in person or by letter.

So anyhoo, when pressed you created a diversion. You claimed that someone was saying something, something, yada yada yada.

But I really don’t have a horse in this race, I was just curious as to what your response would be given the clarification of the question. The OP is the one requiring a Bible verse.

Peace Be With You,

HC

 

[NotTooSmart]

To be perfectly honest, I don’t get that.

Hmmm … I guess you’d have a better shot at convincing me if you said “Sola Scriptura is a truth but not a doctrine” rather than “Sola Scriptura is a practice and not a doctrine”.

Sure I will explain. I have thought this out. To me what it means is…

Well first of all I don’t have to start a gazillion page thread and claim 2 Timothy 3:16 and whatever other Scriptures might exist on the subject as my prooftexts for stating this as definitely Biblically true doctrine. In fact I don’t particularly care whether I can definitely prove this as definitely, doctrinally true from the Bible or not.

The downside of this is that it technically leads me exposed so that I could theoretically accept alternative claims of authority. After all I don’t have any overriding doctrine that I could lean back on and say for example that the Book of Mormon is definitely not the Word of God.

However, this window of exposure is miniscule. Because I do have the practice if not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And I believe this practice is Biblically supported if not Biblically provable.

First I am told in Scripture to examine everything carefully and hold fast to that which is good. In other words I don’t take any new claims on anybodys say so. And the only means which I have to verify truth is through that which I know to be truth, which is what I have been taught is truth, and that being the Written Word of God.

So what it means in a practical sense is if the Mormons want to convince me that their “Book of Mormon” is also the “Word of God” their mechanism for doing so must be in what I know as the written word of God…or the Bible. Good luck to them if they want to do so.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JohnNC,

This is where I am getting confused. Doesn’t Soal Scriptura mean “Only Scripture”

Well, since this isn’t what SS really is…
Jon

Just what kind of distinction are you making?

If there is a ‘theory’ and a ‘practice’ element in SS - what are they.

Remember, the purpose is clear communications - so being cryptic or vague is just not helpful.

Thanks

God bless

 

[bMAC93]

Well, since this isn’t what SS really is…

Jon

if this is not what it is than what is it?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fisher,

You were really wound up on this post… Maybe it is possible to make things a little simpler - but, before doing that - I think it appropriate to first drop that attitude you so blithly have been displaying

Not to worry. As in just about everything she demands of those who wear her chains, Rome has provided an escape clause – invincible ignorance.

So, you are really interested in knowing about the truths of the Catholic Faith? Well, let’s set some priorities first - the CC that you have been bashing was the one that actually assembled the Bible you are clutching in your hand as the only definitive source of God’s Word - with ‘Sola Scriptura’ being the battle cry of Protestantism as it fled the Church founded by Christ on Peter.

When a Christian has questions concerning his faith, he turns to the Bible, the inspired Word of God, and seeks answers. Guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit – the same Holy Spirit Rome claims guides the membership of her Magisterium and protects her from doctrinal error – the diligent believer will discover God’s truth. The Scriptures reveal those things necessary for salvation and are the sole infallible rule of faith.

Since you are already aware that it is the Church that the pillar of truth - I really do not see the honest purpose in your presentation. Now, if it is to show ‘confusion’ by the confusing way you have grouped this material, I will go along with that

//////////////////

How much more difficult for the Roman Catholic faithful, who must seek guidance and answers from a multitude of sources grouped under three general headings:

“[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Pius IX, Dei Filius, Chap. 3, 1st Vatican Council, Session III, April 24, 1870 [Denzinger 1792])

What are these truths, these dogma, that are divinely revealed and why is it necessary that Catholics assent to all of them?

Allow me to answer. You will find ALL you need to know about the truths of the Catholic Faith in one source: The Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And, just to make sure you can access this immediately and in no way slow down your quest for knowing the Truths taught by Holy Mother Church, I have included a link to bring you right to this site I have provided the Table of Contents, which will provide you with the major topics and then the individual sections. It really is very straight forward. Here it is: scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

In reality, I think I have answered your question… even though it really did appear to be more of a derogator statement about the Chruch Christ founded and promised His Holy Spirit would guide for all time. The source of the error-free teaching of Salvation - of which the Bible is a part (but, not the whole) comes from the Holy Spirit.

You may want to spend a moment thinking about when Christ came back to earth and revoked His promise to be with the Church He founded on Peter and keep the gates of Hell from ever prevailing…Hmmmmmmmm… I am sure it was sometime around 1517 … but, the last book in my Bible was written about the year 100.

God bless

 

[Peter_J]

NotTooSmart,

A comment on the whole “a practice but not a doctrine” matter …

I think a large part of the different between us that we’ve been talking about here, is not just the “Sola Scriptura” issue specifically, but more where we are each coming from generally. For myself, I recognize some specific truths which are not doctrines. For example, it is a truth – a historical fact – that a Ecumenical Council was held in 325 A.D. That certainly isn’t a doctrine (the Lord didn’t tell the Apostles that kind of specific detail of what was going to happen in the future), but it is a truth.

That’s not a great explanation, but I don’t have a lot of time to spend on it. )

 

[NotTooSmart]

NotTooSmart,

A comment on the whole “a practice but not a doctrine” matter …

I think a large part of the different between us that we’ve been talking about here, is not just the “Sola Scriptura” issue specifically, but more where we are each coming from generally. For myself, I recognize some specific truths which are not doctrines. For example, it is a truth – a historical fact – that a Ecumenical Council was held in 325 A.D. That certainly isn’t a doctrine (the Lord didn’t tell the Apostles that kind of specific detail of what was going to happen in the future), but it is a truth.

That’s not a great explanation, but I don’t have a lot of time to spend on it. )

Nope: I don’t think you understand.

Let me explain with a neutral example…the book of Mormon.

I can reject the book of Mormon because I subscribe to this doctrine called Sola Scriptura that tells me to reject all competing claims of authority structure.

Well, let’s say you don’t subscribe to this as a doctrine. Does that mean you are going to become a Mormon when they come a knocking.

Well maybe somebody but not me. Because as a practice I take their claim of an alternative authority structure, look it up in Scripture (the only infallible authority source that I am aware of), and conclude…nope it ain’t there.

As long (1) you start off your Christianity as I did with only one source (the Bible) that you consider as infallible (note that you do not have to believe as a doctrine that only the Bible is infallible). and (2) you test each alternative claim of authority structure against the one source you know is infallible (note that you are not assuming beforehand that these alternative claims are impossible) and (3) you conclude…nope the claim ain’t there, you are in effect holding Sola Scriptura as a practice.

 

[Newbie2]

if this is not what it is than what is it?

Depends on how you define “is”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SyCarl,

Way back when I was a Freshman (1965!!) I read the Institutes of the Christian Religion as a history assignment. As I recall… It was no subsitutute for beer and hot dog… To be honest, I do not remember any of what I read then - and, I did not go back and read it.

Have you ever read anything by Calvin and seen how much he referred to the Church Fathers?

Tell me, at least as you appreciate Calvin’s readings of the ECF and his writings about them - did Calvin find where the ECF proposed Sola Scriptura? If so, please give me a reference.

God bless

 

[banjo]

As long (1) you start off your Christianity as I did with only one source (the Bible) that you consider as infallible (note that you do not have to believe as a doctrine that only the Bible is infallible).

I’ve never found the text in the Bible that says one should only accept the Bible as one’s only infallible source. If it isn’t in the Bible, wouldn’t that be a man-made tradition?

 

[happilycatholic]

First I am told in Scripture to examine everything carefully and hold fast to that which is good.** In other words I don’t take any new claims on anybodys say so. And the only means which I have to verify truth is through that which I know**

 

[Radical]

I’ve never found the text in the Bible that says one should only accept the Bible as one’s only infallible source. If it isn’t in the Bible, wouldn’t that be a man-made tradition?

I would say that it is more of an assessment than a tradition. You are probably aware that the concept of Sola scriptura became more popular in the early 16th century. At that time, given what the western portion of the visible church was doing and teaching, it became obvious (to some) that the western portion of the visible church was teaching and acting in error. That observation caused those good people to wonder what, if anything, could be trusted if the church was capable of error. Their investigation told them that councils and popes often contradicted one another and so they were left with Scripture as being the only thing that could be said to reliably present the truth and only the truth. As such:

a) There should be no need to prove that the bible is reliable in the discussion amongst conservative Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants as each acknowledge that as truth;

b) This does not mean that all tradition or man-made assessments are in error, but it means that one will find error amongst tradition and man-made assessments; and

c) this aspect of Sola Scriptura that I have discussed here is not something to be proven from scripture (it was/is a given that scripture is reliable), but rather the “Sola” aspect is established by an historical assessment that shows the error and contradictions in the teachings and actions of councils and popes. (It is not so much an exercise in proving the reliability of Scripture, but rather an exercise in proving the lack of reliability in the other sources…leaving scripture standing alone).

 

[NotTooSmart]

NTS:

Do you realize that by this analogy, we are free to object to any guidance but our own? How does this fit in with Scriptures? Or the way in with Christ and His Apostles were spreading the Gospel?

Then the part in italics seems to contridict your assertation in the first sentence. Do you think this could possibly be flawed? I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but this is why any form of Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed, IMHO.

One cannot say they rely on their own interpretation and then go to any church for guidance. I think one must have guidance. Whether you believe that guidance to be faithfully and morally infallible is your choice.

I personally believe that having that source of infallibility, should one be open to the Truth of the catholic Church, is valuable. That is an understatment.

Christ never taught that we should rely on our own judgement or interpretation of His teaching. That is why He sent the Apostles and he sent them over and over and that did not end upon Christ’s death on earth. It continued.

I’m not really sure at what point those who adhere to SS think Christ taught that we should simply drop everything but written word AND that was possible because everything was contained in written word.

Assuming He knew the Scriptures would be written and that His Apostles would distribute copies of that to believers, wouldn’t he have put something in place to instruct them as to how they should use it?

There are no explicit words in Scripture, even thought they are the written Word, that supports Sola Scriptura in any form.

This is why I could never get behind it.

Even by Protestant standards of the keeping of Tradition, it would have to be a Tradition that was *already *in place. That cannot be evidenced implicitly or explicitly. Which is what this thread was asking us to do.

So where does that leave us?

I really do not understand what you are saying. Perhaps I worded something wrong.

But remember that I am taught the word of God from my local church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth. My local church teaches me that the Bible is the “Word of God” but is silent on whether it is the “Only Word of God”. So under this analogy I am not free to choose for myself. It is in connection with my local church, the pillar and the foundation of the truth.

So when the Mormons come knocking on my door and say that “The book of Mormon is also the word of God”, how else am I to verify whether what they are saying is true or not?

 

[NotTooSmart]

I’ve never found the text in the Bible that says one should only accept the Bible as one’s only infallible source. If it isn’t in the Bible, wouldn’t that be a man-made tradition?

And using your own standard, I have not found the text in the Bible that says that it is impossible for the Bishop of Rome to be in error when he teaches on faith and morals. So if it isn’t in the Bible, wouldn’t that be a man-made tradition.

Remember I was taught that the Bible is infallible from my local church, which is the pillar and the foundation of the truth. It also did not teach anything else as being infallible. Therefore, the only object I am regarding as infallible is my Bible.by default, not by doctrine.

 

[Newbie2]

And using your own standard, I have not found the text in the Bible that says that it is impossible for the Bishop of Rome to be in error when he teaches on faith and morals. So if it isn’t in the Bible, wouldn’t that be a man-made tradition.

Remember I was taught that the Bible is infallible from my local church, which is the pillar and the foundation of the truth. It also did not teach anything else as being infallible. Therefore, the only object I am regarding as infallible is my Bible.by default, not by doctrine.

So your local church taught that the bible is infallible and nothing else is infallible. OK, by that we can say that your local church in not infallible, no? So how can you be sure that your local church was right in saying that the bible is the only infallible source? Since your local church seems to be teaching that it itself is not infallible, it has no standing to declare the bible as infallible.